THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - Transcripts, testimony regarding James Mills Orchards Corporation and related defendants

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley
Transcripts, testimony regarding James Mills Orchards Corporation and related defendants

[A transcription of the document on file in the Angle Archives

Important because they were the predominant user of downstream underflow; and this testimony establishes quite well the existence of lower Stony Creek underflows.

The transcription was made first by optically scanning through Textbridge software, and then cleaning it up. The public-use photocopier in the Court Clerk's office is of such a poor quality that the first output from Textbridge is nearly unusable and requires great effort to clean it up. I am pretty good at it, but not perfect; I apologize for any errors I may have missed.

This 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. 2905

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

AFTERNOON SESSION, FRIDAY, JULY 20TH, 1923 - 2:00 P.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
P.W. Dent, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco
For The United States

H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For their respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - -
(After informal discussion between the Master, counsel, and Mr, John P. Ryan, concerning the inability, by reason of illness, of Mr. Frank Freeman to appear as counsel for Defendants James Mills Orchards Corporation and Esperanza Land Corporation, it was announced by Mr. Ryan that he would testify in behalf of said defendant corporations, without counsel for said corporations being present.)

p. 2906

JOHN P. RYAN,
a witness sworn in behalf of Defendants ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION and JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORPATION, tesstified as follows:

STATEMENT BY MR. RYAN: I suppose you just want me to make a preliminary statement, Mr. Morton, and then you will start in on the cross-examination. I appear as Engineer and Tax Agent for the Esperanza Land Corporation and the James Mills Orchards Corporation. The holdings of both of these properties are described fully in our Answer in this case. The Esperanza Land Corporation has not at any time to date used water from the surface of Stony Creek. Our only irrigation development has consisted of the construction of three wells and their partial operation for a short time only in 1920. Also, a very small portion--approximately 100 acres of land--was irrigated from the Glenn-Colusa canal in 1914, or '13 and '14--that tract lying between the Glenn-Colusa canal and the eastern boundary of the Esperanza Land Corporation lands, lying east of the Glenn-Colusa canal and being irrigated by gravity from that canal.

As to the James Mills Orchards Corporation, we have planted to orchard the general acreage indicated in our Answer and have irrigated all of that. The acreage planted to orchard is shown in general on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, with the exception of the eastern half mile shown on that exhibit in green, which has not been planted to orchard, but has at intervals been irrigated to alfalfa or other crops.

Referring back to the Esperanza Land Corporation again, I overlooked a small piece of land that we had irrigated in the season of 1920 from wells, which is indicated on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, and shown in green along the western boundary of the

p. 2907

Esperanza lands north of Stony Creek, that land being planted to rice in 1920 and, I believe, to corn in 1921. There has also been a small area of approximately 150 acres in the north tract of the Esperanza Land Corporation, north of the James Mills Orchards lands and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad,--that having been planted to alfalfa and having been irrigated from the wells of the Orchards Corporations and the Esperanza Lands Corporation. The Esperanza has also bored the wells indicated on Plaintiff’s Exhibits north of Stony Creek. So, the Esperanza Land Corporation, then, did not use water prior to 1920 from any of their wells. The James Mills Orchards Corporation has used water continuously from wells since 1912. Our general investment theref I believe, is shown also in our Answer, the investment of the Orchards Corporation at this time, with improvements, is in excess of One Million dollars.
MR. MORTON (Interrupting): Q. Was the same amount irrigated since 1912?
A. The acreage has been increasing since 1912; that year we only irrigated approximately 200 acres and I think we reached our maximum irrigation about 1918.
Q. What is that acreage?
A. About 1,300 acres.
Q. For the James Mills Orchards Corporation?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the maximum for the Esperanza?
A. The maximum acreage irrigated for the Esperanza--the maximum the Esperanza had at any one time was about 190 or 200 acres.
Q, Are they irrigating any now?
A. The Esperanza is not irrigating anything at this time.
Q. Since how long?
A. I think we irrigated some last year--possibly 100 acres.

p. 2908

MR. MORTON: I did not intend to make such an extensive interrupting, but I thought those points might be brought out.
MR. RYAN (continuing): The Orchards Corporation has not at any time used water from Stony Creek, from the surface flow of Stony Creek, but we claim that our wells are directly supplied by Stony Creek and other adjoining waters, and that any material interference with that flow would also interfere with our well supply. I believe that those are the essential points oovered in our Answer and I don’t see that anything further could be added.
MR. MORTON: That is all you wish to offer in the first instance, Mr. Ryan?
MR. RYAN: Yes.

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ryan, the water supply for the Esperanza Land Corporation and for the James Mills Orchards Corporation is procured from wells which tap the ground water in that region; isn’t that so?
A. That is so..
Q. How much of a lift is it; what is the average lift in there?
A. The water normally stands about 15 feet average through our wells and drops down from 10 to 30 feet towards the end of the season, our maximum lift being about 45 feet.
Q. Isn’t it true that those wells are all in fair proximity to the Sacramento River?
A. No; bur nearest well is several miles away from the River.
Q. It is from about 2 to 6 miles, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever noticed the correspondence between the level of the water in the Sacramento River and those wells.?
A. There is no relation between the two.

p. 2909

Q. You have investigated it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know the condition of the water table prior to the comprehensive irrigation on the Orland Project?
A. No; my first experience with these lands was in the year 1911; then I had charge of that area for the old S.V.I. Company and I took some observations at that time, but the Orland Project had irrigated several thousand acres prior to that time and had finished their storage works.
Q. Now, the source of water supply is the water table, distinguished as far as you know from any underground rivers?
A. The source of all of those waters is the underground channels or bodies of gravel which exist at variable depths all over that area.
Q. And the contributions to that water table are made from all sources; for example, if there were water poured into the ground in any place in the Valley, it would be a contribution to the water table--it would really have some effect on the water table, would it not?
A. Not unless above these lands or immediately adjacent below them.
Q. And the irrigation of the Government Project above there--which is directly above the lands, by the way--the irrigation of those lands would tend to keep that water table higher in the late summer months, would it not?
A. It is probable that that would be the effect.
Q. For the reason that it the water was not diverted from the river and taken out of the river and used on those lands, it would all--the flow in the river itself, or the Creek, rather Stony Creek, I mean--would be inconsiderable in the later summer months, and your water table would not be replenished in the

p. 2910

same fashion as it would be holding back that supply?
A. Yes, that is so, but that would be balanced to some extent by the application of those waters to the areas which are indirectly contributing to the lands in question; for example, the area southwest of Orland would probably in no way add on to the Orchards Corporation water supply, and at the same time if the water used for the irrigation of those lands and the Project was allowed to continue in the stream it probably would have some effect on the supply in the Mills Orchards wells.
Q. The balance that is made, however, must by reason of the fact that this water is held back by the irrigation of these lands in the summer--the balance that is struck must be on the high side, must it not, Mr. Ryan?
A. Yes, it would he my opinion that the storage water that the Government now stores in East Park Dam would be gradually carried down through the underground reservoir through the course of the Orland Project and those waters would tend to get away from the Project towards our lands.
Q. The point I am thinking of in this connection, Mr. Ryan, is the practical one as to what, as far as we are able to determine undeground conditions at all, has been the practical effect of the irrigation of land above upon the water table--and as I understand, the practical effect has been, if there has been any effect at all, and there certainly has been some effect, to decrease the expense of the lift which ordinarilly is neoessary in the later season--in other words, has tended to keep the water table at a higher level in that section in the summer than it otherwise would be; that is approximately your view, Mr. Ryan?
A. Those are my views but we have no actual data to substantiate

p. 2911

them because our irrigation started about the time that irrigation started on the Orland Project and we don't know what the conditions would be there if we were not pumping or if the Orland Project was not irrigating,but it is probable, in my opinion, that if the Orland Project was not being irrigated that the operation of our wells would tend to reduce the water more than it is being reduced at this time.
Q. That is a pretty well-known principle, is it not, in watersheds where you have a delta at the lower end, or a quasi-delta, and irrigation above--that the available supply in the water table or the available ground water supply is held further along into the summer by reason of the irrigation of lands above; that is a pretty general principle, is it not?
A. That is so, generally.
Q. Is it your view in connection with these lands--the Esperanza and the James Mills Orchards Corporation lands--that there is really no important claim that need be urged as to the water flowing in the channel of Stony Creek, isn’t it?
A. That is my view of it,
Q. Whether it is right straight on the surface or flowing through the channel bed of Stony Creek--that is, in the bed of Stony Creek itself?
A. Yes.
Q. And that it is not of importance to establish a so-called riparian right for the waters flowing in Stony Creek channel; is that so, also?
A. Yes.
THE MASTER: I don’t think that is an entirely fair question to ask Mr. Ryan under the peculiar circumstances here--to ask him about a riparian right. [Wow. McCutchen sticks up for rights of a defendant in the absence of counsel.]
MR. MORTON: What prompted the question was my talk with

p. 2912

Mr. Ryan. We had discrussed the matter a little bit and I understood it was his desire to bring out the one point--and that Stony Creek, in their attorney's judgment, when they were talking about it with him, was not of importance. Now, of course, we can readily correct that if it was not so--that it was not of importance to establish a riparian right for the waters flowing in the Stony Creek channel--and that what their right was was a right to take from wells, from the water table proper, if anything. It was my understanding that it was their desire to bring that feature out. if I am incorrect in that, I will be very glad to change it,
MR. RYAN: Yes, that is correct. I would like to modify that to this extent--that it is conceivable that if the Government increases its operations by numerous other storage reservoirs throughout the upper area, it is possible that under those conditions the stream-bed conditions might be such that our underground strata would not be replenished even by the irrigation of the land above us and that the quantity of waste on those lands under those conditions would not be as great as the probable seepage into the gravels from the existing stream bed. That would only apply, however, in case of greatly increased storage facilities on the part of the Gevernment.
MR. MORTON: That would be a matter of future issues, if it should arise, and if your investigation should determine that there was such a change in the water table, caused by that means.
MR. RYAN: That wae one of the matters that had been under discussion for some time amongst ourselves and in which Mr. Mills the President of the Orchards Corporation, was a

p. 2912

little bit at sea. He a kind of [sic, the phrase] understood that this action was one which would permit the Government to instal all kinde of storage reservoirs above. We didn't understand at first that the action was as to present existing facilities. [and Mr. Mills found out later he was correct, see his protest of the Stony Gorge application]
MR. MORTON: Yes, it has to do with existing water rights, whatever they may be, and the Government stands here under its complaint claiming nothing but what has to do with the Project as it now stands. [so far]
MR. RYAN: So, it is my view that the present Project, as to its present extent and the present storage facilities, does not interfere with our normal ground water supply.
MR. MORTQN: Q. Would that be also true as a practical matter, Mr. Ryan, in connection with the other areas being irrigated above--presently being irrigated above--that is, private landholders up and down the stream?
A. There being no such diversion at this time between the Government’s diversion at Miller’s Buttes and ours, I cannot see that that condition would ever come about.
Q. What I had in mind, Mr. Ryan, was whether or not the irrigation by others above the Government diversion--present irrigation--had any real effect on your present situation?
A. That is, referring to the numerous other defendants in this case?
Q. Yes.
A. It is my opinion that they have not.
Q. The outlet for all this ground water is the Sacramento River, is it not, Mr. Ryan?
A. Yes; such as is not consumed locally or used up by evaporation goes into the River.
Q. Now, the thought that I have in that connection and upon which I would like your judgment is as to whether or not the

p. 2914

outlet isn't really a controlling or partly controlling feature in connection with the level of the ground water; for example if the outlet is high, wouldn’t that cause--by reason of the backing up, so to speak, or retardation of the flow into the outlet--wouldn’t that have an effect upon the ground water itself?
A. Theoretically, that would exist, but in this particular case the slope towards the river is such that we cannot notice any effect of the river fluctuations in any of our wells. The water in the river at the Genella Bridge, that being the bridge near Hamilton, is in the summer about 122 feet above sea level, where our lowest land is 148 feet above sea level, with a water level there of about 15 feet below the ground, or 133 feet to our lowest ground water level, compared to 120 and something in the river, about two miles or more away. Now, we have not been able to note any connection there and it is probable, from my observations, that most of these channels do not have any direct connection with any existing stream bed of the Sacramento River, though it might get down into numerous unconnected channels to the River proper and tend to flow, southerly parallel with the River. Water tests have been made by myself of the water in these different wells to determine the possibility of another source, and all of the wells in that whole area, extending clear down as far up above the Central Canal to almost Jacinto, show that all of the water there, at all depths, as much as 150 or 175 feet, is Stony Creek water, that being determined by chemical analysis of the water in the River and the water in the surface of Stony Creek and at numerous wells scattered through-

p. 2915

out the Orland Project. The water throughout the whole area has practically the same chemicals in it. I made special tests for sodium chloride, that being the easiest to determine, and the breaking point of that source of water could readily be determined due to its percentage of that salt compared to other waters, and at no place have we been able to notice any effect of River water.
Q. The implication, Mr. Ryan, was not that necessarily the River water backed up into those lands. The idea that I had was that the water being at the bottom of a trough, and being high, that you would have--if the River were high--you would have a less fall in your water table, with less distance to go, and therefore that the flow might be retarded somewhat by the high River. As a matter of fact it might be directly dependent upon that. It could be illustrated, I think, by thinking of a basin to which a slanting trough is pointing, and the trough is at the bottom of the basin. Now, if you fill the basin you will take quite a little off the length of that trough, and therefore will not have anyway near the fall before it hits the outlet.
A. I see your point.
Q. Don’t you think that there might be some direct correspondence there, although somewhat indirectly, of the backing up into these lands of Sacramento River water?
A. If we would project a ground-water level from the Orland Project and down to the Esperanza lands and cutting through to the River, we would find a flattening cone. It is a cone-shaped slope, and we would probably--in fact I know we would--find a mile from the River that the water would be several feet above. Now, we could conceive that the River

p. 2916

would raise 20 feet, until we would have a point in there that in the course of a year would fill up--would gradually fill up--until that flattened cone would reflect further away than it does now.
Q. And you do not concede, therefore, as far as your investigations have gone, as I understand it, that the height of the Sacramento River has any effect upon the situation as far as the wells are concerned?
A. No; the natural condition at this time is that the river at its present level--and the slope of this ground water is down towards the present level. I admit that this would assume a condition by which the water was raised or lowered and I admit it would affect our ground water slope for some distance away from it.
Q. Getting back to the contributing source of the ground water under the Mills and the Esperanza lands, that ground water is supplied by rainfall, of course?
A. Yes.
Q. And the local contributions from the ground surface?
A. We have practically no local contribution to the ground water. Our rainfall, which is about sirteen to eighteen inches, falls on the surface and very little of that ever reaches the ground level. It fills the upper capillary cells in the ground and is used up by evaporation in the later period, so that all of the water that underlies that area comes from mountain drainage.
Q. But it comes from all around, wherever it may be?
A. Yes; the only possible source however, our contention is, is the Stony Creek drainage area.
Q. The whole Stony Creek drainage area?
A. Yes, and no other drainage area.

p.2917

Q. And one of its main sources is the so-called deep percolation from irrigated lands immediately surrounding the land or near the land?
A. It is extremely probable that that is one of the large present sources of supply.
Q. And this precipitation that occurs in the watershed is, of course, in the upper reaches--a good deal of it, of course?
A. Yes most of it.
Q. Is that land, Mr. Ryan, the Esperanza and tbe Mills Orchards lands, in the general plain of the Sacramento Valley rather than in a confined canyon of Stony Creek?
A. No, it is a definite cone built up by Stony Creek which has gradually tended to force the Sacramento River, or keep the Sacramento River from coming to the west side of the valley. The effect can be noticed in a large bend there and from different channels on Stony Creek entering the river at different points. There is no indication at different depths that the Sacramento River ever has been west of its present point or that any possible underground channels of the River west of its present point contribute any water to the lands west of its present point.
Q. Do you know whether or not the water table has a general slope across Stony Creek from north to south--that is, that it decreases in height as it runs from north to south and that that is its general direction across Stony Creek?
A. No, I think you are wrong on that. My studies of ground water covering a large area in there show that the ground water contours very closely parallel the surface of the contours.
Q. And what is the general slope of the land in there; that is, it slopes in what direction, south?
A. The slope is in variable directions. The contours at Stony Creek are usual-

p. 2918

ly and generally at right angles to the stream and the effect of the cone is quite noticeable over a large area there. If I had a topographic map, I could show you that in more detail, but the Exhibit which I understand has been prepared by Mr. Eriksen drawing a line parallel with the River, is not very indicative of anything, in my opinion, to show the effect of Stony Creek upon any of the adjoining waters. The proper way would be to draw a cross section at right angles with the stream or, in general, parallel with the contours and that would show in some cases, as for example, right at the orchard, that there is a slope from the stream bed northeasterly and southerly, but a line drawn parallel with the grant line, which is parallel with the River also, does not show up very much as to ground water conditions.
Q. There is a general slope towards the Sacramento River in that country?
A. Yes.
Q. How does that general slope run, north and south in there, or not?
A. East and West.
Q. It slopes from the west to the east?
A. Yes, it slopes from the west to the east. In some places, unless you get south of the Stony Creek, the slope is to the southeast.
Q. Where does Stony Creek leave its own well-defined valley, Mr. Ryan?
A. At Miller’s Buttes.
Q. About where is that located?
A. That is about six miles northwest of Orland.
Q. That is above Orland on Stony Creek, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it anywhere near the Government diversions?
A. It is at the Government diversion.

p. 2919

Q. And the country below that, in a large sense, is really a part of the Sacramento Valley, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. We do not have Stony Creek from there on confined in any ranges of mountains or hills?
A. No, it is in a general flat area. The so-called cone which I have referred to is extremely flat.
Q. Referring to this big plain, a part of the Sacramento Valley at this point, or at least outside the Stony Creek Valley proper, Mr. Ryan, what is the general surface slope of that plain; in what two directions does it go?
A. The slope on both sides of the valley is, in general, towards the River, and there is also a slope to the south with the River, the Rtver occupying in general the bottom, although locally below this point there is actually a trough on both sides of the River, having been built up in the form of a delta.
MR. MORTON: I think that is all,

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HANKINS

MR. HANKINS: Q, Mr. Ryan, calling your attention to your testimony, I believe you said that in 1914 one hundred acres of the Esperanza Lands were irrigated from the Canal; what is the location of that hundred acres, with reference to the point of intersection of the Canal and Stony Creek?
A. It was those lands south of a road extending from Orland to St. John and immediately east of the Canal, which point would be just a few hundred feet away from the interesection point that you mentioned
Q. That would be south of the point of intersection, would it not?
A. Yes.
Q. You were conneceted with the Canal system since 1911, up to a few years ago--two years ago?
A. Since 1903.

p. 2920

Q. What was the condition as to the crossing of the Canal and Stony Creek in reference to the picking up of water from Stony Creek to be used in the Canal?
A. A removable wooden wier [sic] was placed across Stony Creek in the latter part of 1904. That consisted of a sheet pile dam extending between the two headwalls built by the old Central District in 1890, this sheet piling extending down about eight feet below the surface, and on top of that there was built a floor about twelve feet long, parallel with the stream--up and down the stream--and on top of that was built certain portable wiers with flashboards which were removed each year. That condition continued until 1920. Since that date there has been a gravel dam constructed each year at the site of and over this wier.
MR. MORTON: You are referring, are you, Mr. Hankins, to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s structures?
MR. HANKINS: Yes.
Q. Now, from 1904, what was the practice of the owners of the canal, with reference to the use of Stony Creek water?
A. Water was first used in the year 1904 and was used exclusively until about the seventh of July, 1907, that being the only source of supply that the canal had. Since that date, there has been used of Stony Creek water whenever it was available.
Q. And by that you mean that Stony Creek water was used in the early part of the season as long as Stony Creek flowed; is that the idea?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the posting of the Notices of Appropriation for Stony Creek water?
A. That was by Sheldon?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I was probably along at the time

p. 2921

those were posted, along about 1903, but I don't recall that I had anything definite to do with it.
Q. Have you any knowledge of the purpose and of the intent of those postings and recording those Notices of Appropriation for Stony Creek water?
MR. MORTON: (interrupting) By whom?
MR. HANKINS: By Sheldon or the persons interested with Sheldon in the use of the water.
A. Well, of course, I was connected with the Company aa a rodman, or something of that kind; in fact, I was their first employe, so I knew in general what they had in mind at that time.
Q. Would you State for the benefit of the Master, the scheme they had in mind at that time?
A. Sheldon secured control of the works of the Central Irrigation District, so be proposed in a sort of a wild way to irrigate the west side of the Valley as far as Yolo County and proceeded to file Appropriations of five thousand second feet upon the river and upon Stony Creek as a part of that plan. It wass proposed to use the waters as far as they were available from Stony Creek. At that time it was not known that the Central Canal would require pumps, but on the other hand, it was not the intention to construct any works for the irrigation in that year, and it was necessary to use Stony Creek water until the works were completed at the River, and there were certain waters available at the time for appropriation and it didn’t cost anything to appropriate, so he did it.
Q. Now, the subsequent owners of the system, as long as you were connected therewith, had the same idea, at least to a certain extent, as to the use of the Stony Creek water--that is, for the irrigation of lands on the west side of the valley, as

p. 2922

far as the water would go?
A. Yes, it his always been the idea since Sheldon took charge of it, to use Stony Creek waters as far as they were available, and that became more important as soon as they found that a pump was required at the River.
Q. And during this period of time, it was the annual practice to put in a dam as soon as irrigation was needed and to use Stony Creek water as long as it flowed; that was the fact, was it not?
A. Yes.
THE MASTER: There are just a couple of questions that I would like to ask you, Mr. Ryan.
Q. You say you started out with the Mills Orchards Company and the Esperanza Land Corporation about 1911?
A. 1912, I think, was when those companies were organized.
Q. Do you know what year the Government put in the sscond so-called diversion dam?
A. I was there numerous times--I believe it was in 1909.
Q. You say that the water which is put on the northern portion of the Orland Project--some of it--eventually finds its way into these wells that you were speaking of?
A. Yes and also that portion of the Project south of the Creek and east of Orland.
Q. Has much of that been put under water recently, or has practically all of that been under irrigation since 1911?
A. The acreage has been constantly increasing so that at this time practically all of it is irrigated.
Q. Back about when you first were there, not a good deal of it was irrigation [sic]?
A. No, very little at that time.
Q. Can you tell from that fact how much effect that water has on the water in your wells?
A. No, we have no records that

p. 2923

would cover a period long enough to definitely prove any relation between the two. It it probable that if our wells were not being used for irrigation at that time, that subsequent to the irrigation of the Orland land, the water level in our wells would rise above where it is.
Q. About your qualifications, would you tells us what training you had, and your experience?
A. I started a course of Engineering at Van der Naillen’s Engineering School in San Francisco in 1900 and 1901, and was on numerous small jobs as rodman and office assistant with the Central Canal and Irrigation Company in that area in l903, and was on topographic work in the Valley with the Geological Survey in 1904 and 1905. I was Engineer for the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company at Hamilton in 1906 and 1907. I was Assistant Engineer with the Northern Electric Company in 1908, and in 1909 I was Assistant Engineer for the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company on the so-called S.V.I. Project, and in the latter part of 1909 and ‘10 I was engineer for the same company, in charge of the Central Canal, and from 1910 to 1913, I had charge of various units of the Project, and for quite a period was Assistant Chief Engineer, and then Engineer. I had charge of the Hamilton Unit in l9l2, with the development work that went on there at that time, and was in general private practice in 1914 and 1915. Beginning 1916, I was Tax Agent for the Mills Orchards Corporation and the Esperanza Land Corporation and the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company and the Sacramento Sugar Company and the Superior California Farm Lands Company, on miscellaneous work connected with those different concerns. In 1918, I temporarily took charge of the operation of the Canal System of the West Side Canal Company

p. 2924

for the Receiver doing emergency work, and in 1919 I was Water Master for the same Company, and in 1920 I was Superintendent for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which was organized that year, and since then I have been Engineer and Tax Agent for the same companies mentioned above, excepting for this period, and I am also Engineer, in the last few years, for the Jacinto Irrigation District, so that I have been connected with this system here more or less continuously since l903.
THE MASTER: That is all.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINITION BY MR. MORTON

MR. MORTON: Q. In reference to the use or Stony Creek water at its diversion by means of a dam which you refer to, first by way of the Central Canal--if I remember rightly--do you happen to know when that water was first used that way--what year?
A. Water was first used in the Central Canal in 1904.
Q. Where did it go?
A. The major portion of that water was used for the irrigation of a few acres of land near Princeton.
Q. Is that now in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. No, those lands are now included in the Princeton-Cordorra--Glenn Irrigation District.
Q. That was in 1904, Mr. Ryan?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And how many acres?
A. There is no record as to the acreage that was irrigated; during those first few years the Company sold water rights and made charges on the gross acreages and their records were kept that way, so we don't know. Probably in 1904 there was not in excess of three hundred acres actually irrigated.
Q. In subsequent years, was that area increased?

p. 2925

A. In 1905, that area was gradually increased each year, but again no records are available as to the acreage irrigated prior to 1908, that I have any knowledge of. In a general way water was applied in 1904, 1905 and 1906 only to lands in the Princeton-Cordora Irrigation District and to a few lands in the neighborood of Jacinto that are not now embraced in any District and not now being irrigated. In 1907, about fifty acres was irrigated in the Jacinto District and in l908 about fifty acreas in the Jacinto District.
Q. Was the Sacramento River water used during those years?
A. Water from the Sacramento River was used for the first time on July seventh, I think, of 1907.
Q. Up to that time, when the Sacramento River water was used, was there any water used from Stony Creek in the present Glenn-Colusa Water District?
A. Prior to 1908?
Q. Prior to the time when the Sacramento River water was used; that would be in 1907.
A. No, there was no land irrigated in the present Glenn-Colusa District prior to l908 from either scource.
Q. And now, in l908, how much land was irrigated in the present Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. My records only seem to indicate about twsnty-five acres,
Q. From Sacramento River water?
A. Well, I don't know. The waters that year were mingled so that I couldn't say how much water was used.
Q. Run through those years, Mr. Ryan, and give us the areas irrigated, at least approximately, in those years from l908 on.
A. This line of testimony has no connection with any of the Defendants that I represent in this matter.
Q. No, it is not responsive to what was brought out by Mr.

p. 2926

Hankins, which also had no connection. We are just making use of you, Mr. Ryan, while we have you on the stand.
A. I just wanted to know whore I stood. In those years, 1904, up to and including 1909, practically all of the water diverted was used in the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn Irrlgation District. It flowed down the Central Canal to the River Branch and then flowed down the River Branch. The maximum quantity that could be pumped at that time from the River was 110 second feet. I have no actual record as to maximum diversions from Stony Creek during those yenrs and I do not believe that there is any such record, except from 1910 on, we have a fairly good record, and on acreage I have something from 1908. In l908 there were forty acres irrigated in the Jacinto District from those waters used; 3380 acres in the Princeton-Cordora District; 25 acres In the Glenn-Colusa District,and 100 acres in alfalfa at this time not in any District, making a total of 3400 acres. In 1909, there were 219 acres irrigated in the Jacinto Distict, 4100 in the Princeton District, and 190 in the Glenn-Colusa District, and 180 acres not in any District, making a total that year of 4590 acres irrigated. In 1910 there were 282 acres in the Jacinto District, 2460 in the Princeton Distriction [sic], and I have no complete record as to the irrigation in the Glenn-Colusa and outside, but the total acreage irrigated that year from the Canal was 3448, roughly meaning about 700 acres irrigated in the Glenn-Colusa District. I have not with me at this time any further segregation of those acreages irrigated by the Canal for the different Districtx. Those areas were at that time all a portion of what is known as the Kuhn Project and were irrigated by the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, a co-operative concern. That condition continued until about

p. 2927

1915, when the Princeton District was organized. The Jacinto District was organized in 1917 and continued to use water from the Central Canal. A portion of the lands that were prior to this time irrigated by the S.V.I. was later on involved in the Providant District and also the Compton-Delevan District, so I have not made any segregation for those Districts. I just know the total irrigated. The Glenn-Colusa as a District did not function until 1920.
Q. You have no records of the amount of land now in the Glenn-Colusa District that was irrigated in subsequent years?
A. I have those records some place, but I haven’t got them with me. For the subsequent years, all I have with me at this time is a statement of maximum quantities of water diverted by the Canal and the total acre feet diverted from the Canal and from Stony Creeck.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HANKINS

MR. HANKINS: Q. Mr. Ryan, just to get this record straightened out--the Central Irrigation District, the Central Canal and Irrigation Company, the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company are all predecessors in interest of the present Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, are they not?
A. Yes.
Q. There was one other Company?
A. There was the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, which had possession of the property for a period.
Q. And when you refer to the "Canal" it is the Canal that has been successively owned, by these various companies?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the original Project was the Central lrrigration District, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember the date of its organization?
A. That was organized in 1887.

p. 2928

Q. What territory was involved in that District, or what territory constituted that District?
A. It was 156,000 acres beginning at the Central Canal about 4 miles or about 3 miles north of Jacinto.
Q. Three or four miles north of Jacinto?
A Yes. It took in an irregular area extending below the present Central Canal and a projection of the same on the same general contour down to ahout 6 miles below Williams. The eastern boundary was in general what is known as the trough, a depression existing west of the River.
Q, As a general thing, it included the territory of the Jacinto District, the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn, and the Princeton District, did it not?
A. No, it did not include any of the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn District. It only included a very small acreage of the Jacinto District.
Q. What other District was the old Central District split up into?
A. The old Central Distict--a small portion of the Provident District was in the old Central District--the major portion of the Compton-Delevan District, and a minor portion of the Jacinto District, and probably a major portion of the Maxwell District, and a major portion of the Williams District, and none of the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn District, those Districts all being regular irrigation Districts,
Q. Now, all of these Districts othar than the Jacinto District have their own source of water supply, have they not, independent of the Central Canal?
A. Yes.
Q. The Jacinto District is supplied through the Central Canal and through agreement with the Glenn-Colusa District as to the use of the Canal, is it not?
A, It is my understanding that they have practically a one-

p. 2929

tenth interest in the canal
Q. And the water rights that were obtained through these other companies are owned by these two districts, that is, the Glenn-Colum Irrigation Distict and the Jacinto Irrigation District?
A. Yes.
MR. HANKINS: As I stated before, we are reserving the right of asking leave to amend our pleadings in reference to the ownership of the water rights and the use of the canal as to these two Districts, our pleading having been filed prior to the consummation of the arrangements between these two Districts and I am asking Mr. Ryan these questions to show that it will be necessary to file these amendments to conform to the proofs.
Q. Was the land referred to as the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn land part of the Kuhn syndicate?
A. Yes, it was originally a portion of the holdings of the Sacramento Valley Land Company, which was associated with the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, both predecessors to the Kuhns-- both holdings or which were purchased by the Kuhn interests.
Q. The original status of the canal was first supposed to be a mutual water company, was it not?
A. The first was by the Central District.
Q. But no water was appropriated by the Central District, was it?
A. Not until 1905. There were no appropriations or use either
Q. There was no use until after the lease of the canal from the Sheldons?
A. No.
Q. What was the next status of the canal system after the Sheldons obtained control?
A. The Sheldons were strictly opereting as a utility company; they were selling water; the Central Canal Company sold water

p. 2930

rights, and contracted to deliver water at a specified rate per acre.
Q. And was water furnished to the Princeton lands under this agreement or this status established by the Sheldons?
A. Yes, up to 1910, when the Kuhn interests got control of it under the name of the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company.
Q. Then what was the status as claimed by the Kuhn syndicate?
A. The Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company at that time claimed that it occupied the dual position of being a utility carrying on the contracts of the predecessor oompany and also of a mutual company distributing water to its own stockholders. They assigned a share of stock in the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company to each acre of land that they sold and they refused to deliver water to anybody who did not hold such stock or who did not have one of the prior contracts. That condition continued until 1915, when land owners petitioned the Railroad Commission, and the Company by prior admissions had practically declared itself to be a public utility, and the Commission at that time issued rates covering all lands covered by the system and disregarded entirely the mutual feature of the Company and also disregarding and canceling all of the prior contracts.
Q. Then all or the water that has ever been appropriated under these 5,000 second feet appropriations has been distributed and used either in one or another of the conditions that you have stated, has it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the mother, or original, plan was the old Central District?
A. Yes.
MR. HANKINS: I think that is all.

p. 2931 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATIQN BY MR, MORTON

MR. MORTON: Q. Did the old Central District include the lands of the Glenn-Colusa Irigation District?
A. Practically all of them.
Q. Practically all of them?
A. Yes, I think that the Glenn-Colusa District now only embraces probably not in excess of 3,000 acres that was not included in the old Central District.
Q. And these and other concerns that you name--the West Side Canal Company--that wasn’t a mutual company that you referred to, was it?
A, The Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company obtained possession from the Central Canal Company, but then they organized the West Side Canal Company and transferred the property over to it and retained the stock of that Company, excepting that they were the owners of 150,000 acres or land more or less, so I think they issued shares of stock in the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company for their lands, with the lands they sold, and since they owned practically all of it, the S.V.I. Company was strictly in control of the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company at all times.
Q. And that Company supplied lands that are presently in the Glenn-Coluaa Irrigation District?
A. The West Side Canal Company supplied lands that are at this time embraced in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, as well as all the other districts I mentioned, with the exception that water was never supplied at any time by any of these concerns to the Williams District, but all of the other districts did receive water from the West Side Canal Company, operating either as a mutual company or in its later phase as a public utility

p. 2932

Q. Where does the Jacinto District get its water, if you knou?
A. The Jacinto District have a part interest in what is now known as and called the Glenn-Colusa Canal. They are entitled to and own a flowage right or a right in the canal to 150 second feet and the Glenn-Colusa own the balance. The water has also been distributed by a certain rule, by which each one is entitled to a certain amount, with a different total anount.
Q. This Jacinto District had to share or use practically all the water that was diverted from Stony Creek, did it not?
A. No, the major portion diverted during those early years was used by the Princeton District.
Q. And that Princeton District now has a different right?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does it get its water?
A. It pumps its water from a point at Sidds Landing about 10 miles east and 4 miles north of Willows.
Q. What canal supplies the Jacinto District--the River Branch?
A. The River Branch does not supply any except about 100 acres the balance is fed directly through the Central Canal.
Q, What is the River Branch canal used for?
A. The River Branch at this time is only used for the irrigation of those few acres of the Jacinto Dictrict and also for the irrigation of 640 acres of the Glenn-Colusa District, an isolated section that has no connection with the balance of the Glenn-Colusa.
Q. That is, below the mouth of Stony Creek, where it takes out of the Central Canal?
A. The River Branch is not used until it reaches the pump of the Princeton-Cordora District, and from that point on it becomes the main canal of the Princeton-Cordora District.

p. 2933

The Jacinto District, prior to 1910, did irrigate lands now involved and the Jacinto District lands were irrigated to a much greater extent than the 282 acres that I reported for that year. I have statements for that showing as high as 5000 acres irrigated in the Jacinto District.
Q. Reverting now, just for a moment, to the James Mills Orchards Corporation and the Esperanza Land Corporation, who is Mr. James Mills, Jr.?
A. He is the ranch manager of the properties of the James Mills Orchards Corporation.
Q. How long has he been that manager?
A. About 2 years.
Q. Is he a son of the original James Mills?
A. Yes, James Mills is President of the company.
Q. Is he an Engineer?
A. No.
Q. He is the Foreman, however?
A. Yes.
Q. How old a man is he?
A. About twenty-five.
Q. We have a note, Mr. Ryan, indicating that Mr. James Mills, Jr. has stated that the wells along within 3 or 4 miles of the Sacramento River respond to the levels of the Sacramento River; do you know anything about that?
A. No; I had a talk with him last year and he didn't express any such views with me, but rather the opposite; probably you misunterstood him. He stated to me, and this record that I have is partly his record--at that time--
THE MASTER: Just a moment. I do not know whether that would he competent,
MR. MORTON: No. I just wanted to cheek our statement of it. That is all,
THE MASTER: Do you want to make any other statement about the two corporations which you represent?
A. I think we have already shown that they are corporations

p. 2934

organized under certain laws.
MR. MORTON: Q. Do you know that that is so?
A. Yes, I do.
THE MASTER: That is all, then, Mr. Ryan.
MR. MORTON: Just one more question. Q. You know that both of those companies are now acting under the laws of this state as corporations, do you?
A. The Esperanza Land Corporation is organised under the laws of New York and they are both qualified to operate in California; I do know that.
Q. How about the James Mills Orchards Corporation; was that organized in California, or, was it in some other state, also?
A. The James Mills Orchards Company is also a New York corporation.
Q. And has appropriate representatives here and is empowered to operate under the laws of California, so fnr as you know?
A. Yes, they are.
MR. MORTON: That is all.
THE MASTER: That is all, then, Mr. Ryan

--------

p. 2996

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

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 1923 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
P.W. Dent, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco
For The United States

Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
For their respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - -

JOHN P. RYAN,
recalled as a Witness in behalf of defendant Sacramento Valley Sugar Company, testified as follows:

DlRECT EXAMINATION
MR. FREEMAN: We will take up the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company matter first.
Q. Are you acquainted with the Answer in that case, Mr. Ryan?
A. I am.

p. 2997

Q. You know the description of the property?
A. I do.
Q. You have been employed by the Sugar Company and other corporations that are represented here to look into the title interests of their properties?
A. Well, I have had occasion to go through the title from the original papers and so on at the time of the original purchase by the different companies.
Q. As far as you are able to judge, up to the time that you made the investigation the title was vested in the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company, as expressed in this Answer?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you know where that property is located as to the stream known as Stony Creek?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you point out on the map where it is, giving us the numbers of the sections?
A. The holdings of the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company referred to in this Answer are indicated on Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, on the east side of the Canal and marked here as "Sacramento Valley Sugar Company", lying on both sides of Stony Creek.
Q. You think that is a correct location of the land?
A. That is the correct location of the land. It is a portion of the Capay Grant and cannot be described except by metes and bounds, there never having been a subdivision or maps recorded of that piece.
Q. That map shows that the lands cross the Creek and are connected on both sides?
A. Yes, this map indicates the location of the tract and its relation to Stony Creek and the adjoining lands.
Q. And the Sacramento River as well?
A. And the Sacramento River.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with those lands, Mr. Ryan?
A. Practically thirty years.

p. 2998

Q. In fact, you were employed by the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company for a good many years in reference to those lands?
A. I was; during 1906, '07 and '08 and at various times I have been employed by them since in different capacities.
Q. Do you know about how much of the lands has been irrigated from any source there?
A. All of the land on the west side of Stony Creek has been irrigated and about 240 acres on the east side of Stony Creek has been irrigated.
Q. And fron what source?
A. During the year 1906, a few hundred acres on both sides of the stream was irrigated by pumping from Stony Creek from the underground flow. Since that year, the land has been entirely irrigated from the Sacramento River by a pumping plant located north of Hamilton about a mile, the water being carried parallel to the Central Canal and crossing Stony Creek near St. John.
Q. Are the lands all connected to obtain the water from both of the sources you have mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the proposition of the underground supply, as to where that has a foundation?
A. I do.
Q. Have you looked into that question in any way?
A. I have.
Q. Just explain to the Master here your views on that proposition; you have had experience in that matter, haven't you?
A. I have, and have made quite a complete study of the underground water conditions throughout the whole section, including the Capay Rancho and the Jacinto Rancho to the south. All underground water on the tract of the Sacramento Sugar Company that has been irrigated, and especially the land west of Stony Creek, and an unknown portion of the land, east of Stony Creek, can only receive its supply of water from the general Stony Creek drainage basin, and it does receive it from that.

p. 2999

Q. And can you give us some idea from your investigations, or at all as to where it originates?
A. All of the waters in that area originate from a drainage area indicated in brown and purple on this map (indicating Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2) being the whole drainage area of Stony Creek. The local runoff does not amount to anything at all, the rainfall being about sixteen inches in that neighborhood and is entirely taken up by the soil and practically does not replenish the underground water to any extent, so that any water that does arrive there comes from mountain sources.
Q. And what kind of a basin is that below the small mountain range at what we generally call the Moreland, or the Mallon and Blevins lands?
A. East of that point, practically no water from the local area, unless it be irrigation water, gets into Stony Creek. In general, the present stream bed is on a cone or ridge and very little of the land slopes toward the stream bed, there being no flow from the normal rainfall into the stream. So that practically no water gets into the present stream bed east of the Black Buttes, or east of where we have been referring to as east of Miller’s Buttes, as we have been calling it, with the exception of the area covered by Hambright Creek
Q. Hambright Creek is located south and is fed by Stony Creek, isn't it?
A. Yes, and it is also included within the general area indicated by purple on that map.
Q. That water that comes into Hambright Creek, just for the sake of having it clear, finally finds its way into Stony Creek below the Miller’s Buttes?
A. Yes.
Q. And disappears finally in the basin there or does it have an opening into the Creek?

p. 3000

A. It has an opening into the present Stony Creek channel and any waters arriving from that source enter Stony Creek.
Q. How long have you been observing the waters that come down through that source and pass into the underground basin and reach the point where they can use those waters for the purpose of irrigating the Sacramento Valley land which you have described?
A. Of course, my general observation covers probably twenty years in my direct studies of the waters there, but in my study of those particular lands only covers the last two or three years.
Q. Now, in connection with that, you are acquainted, are you, with the matter of the applications made by the Central Canal & Irrigation Company and the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company and other kindred companies of the waters of Stony Creek?
A. I am.
Q. Are you acquainted with all of the applications or whatever they may be termed, that have been filed by the companies I suggested and other people, for the waters of Stony Creek?
A. Only those affecting the Central Canal. I am not familiar with the applications that have been made on the upper stream.
Q. That is, above Miller's Buttes?
A. No, I'm not familiar with those.
Q. I ask you if you have referred to or studies [sic] those particular applications for water in connection with the use of the Sacramento Valley and other lands there--the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company, the Esperanza Land Corporation, or the Mills Orchards Corporation lands?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, when they first began to take water out of Stony Creek under any of those applications?
A. I do.

p. 3001

Q. That is, any of the appropriators--people filing appropriations?
A. The first water taken from Stony Creek, according to my records and recollection, was by the Central Canal & Irrigation Company in 1905.
Q. Weren't there some appropriations before 1905?
A. The filing of appropriations was in 1903; that has been introduced in the record, anyway, whatever that date was.
Q. They are here?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember anything about water being taken from the Creek under the terms of those appropriations, any of them, in 1903?
A. Well, there was no construction in 1903; the appropriations were made, as I recall, in the latter part of the season by Sheldon and construction begun in 1904, and it is just possible that water may have been used on a portion and may have been diverted in 1904, but my recollection is that it was in 1905 that the first water was actually diverted and used. No--I want to correct that, and change the year to 1904, when the water was actually diverted and used upon some lands.
Q. Was it raised from the river by a pumping plant, or by gravity?
A. No water was taken from the Sacramento by the Central Canal until July, 1907.
Q. And there was no opening from the River that brought water out of the Sacramento River and ran across Stony Creek prior to that time, was there?
A. No.
Q. And now, during the construction of some of those works, wasn't there some sort of a dam, or wing dam put in there to divert the waters?
A. During the fall of 1904, a removable wier with sheet piling in front of it, was placed across Stony Creek near St. John.

p. 3002

Q. And that was used to some extent by what company?
A. By the Central Canal & Irrigation Company and following by different companies since that date.
Q. Prior to that was there any dam of that sort across that place to divert water from Stony Creek?
A. No.
Q. Wasn't there some dam that was put in there and washed out--a wooden structure?
A. The Central Irrigation District in the year 1901 placed a wooden syphon across the Creek, with wooden head walls on both banks, the lower head wall being placed low enough so that the syphon was below the stream bed and didn't form any obstruction to the flow of the stream.
Q. That was for the purpose of taking flood water?
A. No, that was for the purpose of taking Sacramento River waters under Stony Creek.
Q. But that wasn't operated very much any of the time?
A. No, that wasn't operated much, and along about 1899 or 1900, was removed [removed before it was installed?].
Q. Was there ever any water taken from Stony Creek to any land south of Stony Creek any time prior to 1904 by any means?
A. No, the canal was not completed in the first 300 feet below Stony Creek until 1904.
Q. There were no canals west of that point, west of Miller's Buttes, to take any water of any consequence out of Stony Creek in the summer season or the spring season?
A. Below Miller's Buttes was the diversion of the Lemon Home Colony.
Q. Well, that was by private individuals before that?
A. Yes sir, the Central Canal or any of its associates never diverted any water from Stony Creek at any point excepting that

p. 3003

one point there, prior to 1904.
Q. And whatever water was taken there came back into the stream before it got far south or east of Orland; I have reference to what we at one time called the Colusa Canal--I am not sure about that--but Rideout or Green appropriated some water which afterwards was I think taken over near that place, near the Miller's Buttes.
A. I don’t recall those instances--probably that would be a diversion on the north side.
Q. Well, on the south side there was some water taken out there that was used by the land owners?
A. Oh, yes, prior to the time of taking over the Canal System in the neighborhood of Orland by the Government, that had been operated in a way for several years and none of those waters probably ever reached Stony Creek again after having been once diverted.
Q. They stopped at the Canal System, didn’t they?
A. The Canal was constructed as far as Orland.
Q. But not that far on the north side?
A. No.
Q. But those water rights, whatever they were, were taken over by the Central Canal & Irrigation Company, weren’t they?
A. No, by the Government.
Q. I meant, by the Government. At the time this certain contract was made by the Government and the land owners or the different companies there?
A. Yes; the Central Canal and Irrigation Company had taken over no prior appropriations on Stony Creek, there having been none prior to the time that Sheldon filed in 1903.
Q. At what time of the year was the first water diverted from Stony Creek under any of these appropriations, prior to 1905--

p. 3004

that is, the Sheldon appropriations?
A. That would probably begin--I have no record of the date, however--about the first of May.
Q. Do you remember when the Central Canal’s works were taken over by Sheldon and others under a lease?
A. Yes.
Q. Even under that lease, did they ever take any water out of Stony Creek later than May?
A. Yes.
Q. How late?
A. As late as July.
Q. Do you know about what supply they took?
A. I have no record except the year 1905. At that time I was along the Canal on several occasions and knew in a general way what the quantity was. Since then, by reference to reports of the companies, I find that the quantity at that time diverted was 35 feet.
MR. MORTON: Q. 35 second feet?
A. 35 second feet.
Q. What year?
A. 1905; I think you have that in my previous case.
MR. FREEMAN: Q. Do you remember where that water was used?
A. That water was used at what is now the Princeton-Cordora District along the Sacramento River, in the neighborhood of Princeton.
Q. That was called what--the West Side Canal?
A. No, at that time it was the River Branch of the Central Canal & Irrigation Company.
Q. How long after that were the waters diverted from Stony Creek used in that canal--in fact, how does it get into the Canal?
A. It gets into the Caral by gravity, a temporary dam being constructed across the Creek at the Canal crossing; and the water has been used from Stony Creek whenever it was available every year since that date.

p. 3005

Q. And about what quantity was diverted each year in that manner?
A. My records only begin at the time that the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company took over the Canal and since then I have the quantities diverted each year in acre feet, most of it being from my own records.
Q. And that could be copied and placed in your testimony here?
A. Well, I could read it in in a minute.
Q. All right, go ahead.
A. Year 1910, 6500 acre feet; 1911 ,--
Q. (interrupting) Before we go any further, let us take each item. In 1910, where was that water used?
A. That water was used on land that is now in the Jacinto District, the Princeton-Cordora-Glenn Irrrigation District, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and some land not at this time embraced in any District.
Q. Where was that land located, if you remember?
A. Some of that land was in the neighborhood of Jacinto, along the River.
Q. That was just west of Jacinto?
A. North and south of Jacinto.
Q. But the lands west of Jacinto?
A. No.
Q. That was not embraced in any District at that time?
A. No.
Q. And it was not embraced in any District until some time after 1910, was it?
A. Those lands that I referred to are not now in any District at all and never have been in any District.
Q. But the water was used in the same way every time?
A. Yes. No Districts were organized prior to 1916, the land at that time being irrigated by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, or other concerns operating as mutual companies or utili-

p. 3006

ty companies.
Q. But they were connected at the north some place with the old Central Irrigation Company works, weren't they?
A. Yes.
Q. About what point west of Orland and north of Jacinto?
A. Those lands were connected about three and a half miles north of Jacinto and about two miles west of the River.
MR. MORTON: Q. What do you mean by "connected"?
A. That is where the River Brench Canal intersected the main Central Canal.
MR. FREEMAN: Q. When was the water first diverted from the Sacramento River by gravity--in what years?
A. Water has never been taken by gravity except during a limited period at the beginning of the season. When any amount of water was required to be diverted, it had to be pumped.
Q. There was no diversion by gravity that was taken down through the Valley anywhere?
A. Yes, there has been.
Q. How far down the Valley?
A. It may have been taken to Maxwell.
Q. Was the Canal completed from the River to Maxwell that year, 1910, or was it completed before that?
A. It was completed after 1910.
Q. By the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company?
A. Yes.
Q. By the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, or the old Central Canal & Irrigation Company?
A. No, sir, the Central Canal & Irrigation Company didn't complete the Canal at that point; it was completed by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company to Maxwell.
Q. What I was trying to bring out was when that connection with the old Canal was constructed; how far from Stony Creek had it been completed in 1910?

p. 3007

A. The Central Canal was more or less completed sufficient to flow water up as far as Willow Creek, about one and a half miles from Willows, in the year 1910.
Q. How far was it connected north of Stony Creek, that is, how far had the Canal run towards the Sacramento River, north of Stony Creek, and connected with Stony Creek, in 1910?
A. In 1910, the Canal was connected with the Sacramento River.
Q. But no water had been taken out by gravity up to that time--out of the Sacramento River?
A. It may be possible that some small quantity may have been taken out at the beginning of the season. Primarily it was a pumping proposition and always has been, to divert water from the Sacramento River to the Central Canal, until the last three years, when it is probable that considerable water could be diverted by gravity at the beginning of the irrigation season from the Sacramento River.
Q. Wasn’t it determtned since your experience and since your knowledge of that situation, that there had never been any opening made in the Canal constructed prior to 1905, only by the Central Canal & Irrigation Company?
A. To the river?
Q. Yes.
A. The opening to the river was constructed in 1906, but no water flowed in at that time, the canal being too high to divert water, and it was necessary to install a pump, which was done in 1907, and water was first diverted in July, in 1907.
Q. And a small amount of water was diverted?
A. 100 second feet.
Q. You know when the Act of Congress gave to the Sacramento Canal & Irrigation Company the right to divert water?

p. 3008

A. I have read that Act.
Q. That was in 1906?
A. Yes.
Q. The ruling then up to that time in regard to taking water from the Sacramento River was limited to a point two feet above the low water mark?
A. That was the limit placed then by the Congressional grant, as I recall.
Q. No, that was the limit put on by the War Department, the River and Harbors Engineer--I have forgotten his name.
A. I am not familiar with any such action prior to the Congressional Grant of 1906; in fact, no water was diverted prior to that time.
Q. I was wondering if you knew the situation prior to that time, and if that wasn't the reason why, if you know, the Act was passed by Congress in order to set aside that law which was in force at that time.
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. Afterwards, and after the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company came in there, the whole system was enlarged, wasn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. And water was diverted by a pumping system all the time after that?
A. Excepting that water was taken from Stony Creek each year when available.
Q. You don't know how many years prior to 1910 that was?
A. Of course, those diversions probably may have existed every year beginning with 1904, whenever water was available, but my records show them existing continuously to 1911.
Q. Well, it never was run down--any of the water you diverted in any of those pumps--before the opening of what you call the River Branch Canal? In other words, until you had the Canal that was partially constructed from the River to the North line of Willows--wasn’t that work done by the Sacramento Valley

p. 3009

Irrigation Company and put through at their own expense, and the assessment made for the right of way was so excessive that the whole thing blew up there long before that, and you couldn't get the water through there until the Central Canal & Irrigation Company was organized in 1903?
A. Yes, the Central District never had its construction completed to such a point that water could be diverted from the Sacramento or into Stony Creek, into any portion of the Canal.
Q. Did they then connect and complete the work on what we call the River Branch at a point--
A. (interrupting) In Section 21 of the Jacinto Rancho.
Q. You don’t know just what year that was?
A. That was in the year 1904.
Q. Have you a record or do you know of any record that shows just how much water was taken out of Stony Creek by any of these corporations since that time, from what months and up to what month?
A. There is no record available showing what quantities of water were diverted from Stony Creek prior to the year 1910; at least, I have never been able to find any. It is probable that at no time did the total diversions exceed 100 second feet. That is from my own observation at the time, no measurements having been made since 1910. We have a record of the total diversions in acre feet from Stony Creek, complete up to 1920.
Q. Do you have any record or any knowledge of what the surface water running in Stony Creek was from that time up to 1910?
A. No.
Q. But there was some water running on the surface of the Creek?
A. Yes, probably each year, beginning with the year 1904, I have personal knowledge that water was flowing in there in the

p. 3010

year 1904, and I have personal knowledge that the water was flowing in the canal every year up to 1910.
Q. And would cease about what time of the year?
A. I have no recollection as to when it would cease. I have a record showing when water was first diverted into the Canal for each year.
Q. Give us that record.
A. In 1905, it was on the 20th of April; in 1906, it was on the 15th of May; in 1907, I have no record; in 1908, on the 1st of Apri1; in 1909, on the 28th of Apri1; in 1910, I have no record; in 1911, the 17th of April; in 1912, 1913, and 1914, no water was diverted from Stony Creek; in 1915, on the 26th of April; [1916 missing?] in 1917, on the 5th of April; in 1918 there were no diversions; in 1919, on the 9th of April; in 1920, there were no diversions from Stony Creek, and I have no record since that date as to quantities or dates diverted.
Q. Have you the date of the application, or the filing of the application for diversion of water by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company--the date that was filed? They were not filed after they came into work here; they had been filed by Sheldon before that.
A. Those filings were made in 1903, by Sheldon, and I don’t recall now whether the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company made filings there or not, but those filings have been introduced in full by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
Q. I thought that those were all there were and all that ever were filed.
A. Yes, those, have all been introduced and I am familiar with all those filings that were made.
Q. How far down the Creek did the water run as you observed

p. 3011

it on the surface in the bed of Stony Creek below where these structures were placed across the Creek by anybody that you have testified to?
A. I have no record of them.
Q. Did you ever observe any water flowing down the surface there as far as the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company lands, or down into the Delta, on into the River?
A. Yes, I have; at the structures put in by the Central Canal & Irrigation Company; provision was made for water flowing over in excess of the requiremente of the company at the time, so that during the early part of the season there usually was water flowing past that structure, and as the requirements of the canal increased and the flow decreased it gradually reached a point where all waters were diverted into the canal and no surface flow existed below that point.
Q. And was it a very perceptible flow before on the surface, before putting in the structures that prevented it going any further than that point; that is to say, did the water decrease materially on the surface west of that point before it quit running down the stream as far as the Sacramento Valley Sugar Company lands?
A. West of this structure?
Q. Yes.
A. I have no record of the decrease and flow of the stream from Miller’s Buttes. In general, it may be said from observation, there was and is a decrease in the quantity of water flowing at different points in the stream, as we go down the stream.
Q. Yes; it got less as it got near the River?
A. Yes.
Q. Nobody had ever made any measurments that you know of, and you haven't, as to the volume of water flowing on the surface in 1900 and before the diversion by the canals on the south? A. I have no knowledge of such

p. 3012

measurements ever having been made.
MR. MORTON: Q. This refers to the flow in Stony Creek, does it?
A. Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: What I was trying to show, Mr. Morton, was concerning the matters agreed upon by a certain contract that you have here in evidence, made by the Government at the time of the formation of the Orland Project--that the amount of water then being dealt with was practically the flood waters--265 feet, I think--and I was wondering if there were any measurements anywhere that gave us that data.
Q. You know of none, Mr. Ryan?
A. No; I have no knowledge of any measurements having been made of Stony Creek excepting those made by the Geological Survey and the Reclamation Service above Miller’s Buttes.
Q. Do you know generally about the condition of the surface stream after the rainy season or after the flood season; did it go down pretty rapidly?
A. Yes, it does decrease pretty rapidly.
Q. It disappeared in the bed of the Creek or in the gravel along the side?
A. Yes; there will often be a flood flow for several days in the neighborhood of Orland after the stream is dry at St. John, the difference between those two representing the quantities of water going into the gravel strata, but no measurements have been made, to my knowledge, to determine what those quantities ere.
A. But it was conceivably noticeable that the flowage is constantly dropping in some years when the rains would cease early in the season?
A. Yes.
Q. And got down as far as this obstruction, or it would disappear almost altogether, and had to be raised, if it could he

p. 3013

raised, by this structure to bring it into the canal when it was being constructed?
A. Yes.
Q. And you think the appropriations or diversions were about 100 feet each year?
A. Not in excess of that amount.
MR. FREEMAN: That is all, Mr. Ryan.

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. What is the area of this Sacramento Sugar Company's holdings?
A. The total holdings of the Company in that neighborhood at this time consist of about 4700 acres; the holding covered by this Answer are about 600.
Q. What do they raise down there?
A. For the last two years, grain has been raised almost exclusively. Prior to that time and since the time of the Sugar Company's holdings, they have raised grain and beets.
Q. Now, they haven't irrigated any of that land at all since about 1916 or 1917, have they?
A. 1918, I believe, was the last year.
Q. Did they irrigate in 1918--'17, wasn't it?
A. My memory is 1918; that is the last year that the factory operated.
Q. Prior to the tine that they ceased operating there, where did they get their water?
A. Every year, with the exception of one year that I mentioned--in 1906--the water was taken from the Sacramento River exclusively.
Q. And in 1906 they took it from some pumps?
A. For a period of two months--approximately that term--in 1906, the water was diverted from the underground channel of Stony Creek--up from the channel of Stony Creek--by means of pumps.
Q. You mean pumps were set in the Creek itself?

p. 3014

A. Yes there being no surface flow at the time. We excavated a channel across the stream and placed about four pumps in the stream bed.
Q. Those pumps were taken out after that year?
A. Yes, they were taken out after 1906.
Q. And since then what water has been used has been from the Sacramento River?
A. As far as my personal observation goes.
Q. When they did irrigate, they irrigated altogether how much land at one time?
A. I have no record of the exact amount irrigated; it would not be in excess of 600 acres, though.
Q. Considerably less than that, wasn’t it, Mr. Ryan--the total in any one year?
A. I think not. There were years when all of the irrigable land was irrigated.
Q. And that was from the Sacramento River?
A. That was from the Sacramento River.
Q. You had a separate ditch?
A. Yes, the Company has a separate ditch diverting the water by means of a pump north of Hamilton about a mile.
Q. During the time that they irrigated with these pumps in that one year, do you remember how much land was irrigated?
A. That year we irrigated practically all of the land of the Company west of Stony Creek, as well as a portion of the holdings south of it, now owned by the Superior California Farm Lands Company.
Q. That was for about 2 months?
A. Practically that period.
Q. In the middle of the summer or early in the spring?
A. It began probably about the 15th of April.
Q. After 1906, did they immediately begin to irrigate from

p.3015

the Sacramento River?
A. Yes, and during 1906.
Q. And was it continuous from that time up to the year they ceassed?
A. Yes.
Q. And varying areas were irrigated?
A. Yes.
Q. Running from a small amount to a total of 600?
A. Yes.
Q. On the average, do you know about how many acres they have irrigated from the Sacramento River?
A. From the river?
Q. Yes.
A. Records are available as to that amount, but I do not recall what they are. I would estimate that about three thousand acres have been irrigated every year in the whole tract of the Sugar Company from the Sacramento River.
Q. About 3,000 acres?
A. Yes.
Q. That is, territory outside the holdings that we are talking about here?
A. Yes, outside.
Q. Of the holdings that are referred to in the Answer, about how much has been irrigated every year?
A. Again, I have no record, but I would estimate that it was about half every year.
Q. About half--somewhere around 300 acres?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as to the underground water below this land, the general tendency would be that the irrigation on the Government Project throughout the season would tend to maintain the level of the underground water or keep it up during the late summer, would it not?
A. It is my opinion that it would.
Q. What was the reason for the discontinuance of irrigation if you know?
A. The Company did not make money raising beets, so they quit operating the factory and

p. 3016

quit raising beets as the same time, and grain crops raised on these lands since then do not require irrigation.
Q. Their irrigation system from the Sacramento River is still in existence, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And if they should resume irrigation, they would use the system and go ahead; is that the idea?
A. I assume that that would be the source of supply.
Q. However, the crops they are now raising are such as to require no irrigation?
A. Yes.
Q. The generai slope of this country in this section, Mr. Ryan, is towards the Sacramento River, isn't it?
A. It is.
Q. Ard the Sacramento River is the outlet of the ground water in that section, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. In the whole Sacramento Valley, of which these lands are a part, there is a general ground water reservoir, I suppose, isn't there?
A. There Is.
Q. And the territory down here in this section would be affected directly by the raising or lowering of the general ground water in the Sacramento Valley, wouldn’t it?
A. It would have no relation to the balance of the Sacramento Valley.
Q. The ground water is a part of the general ground water in the Sacramento Valley, isn't it?
A. Yes, but each body of ground water has its own particular source and its level is only affected by its source of supply and not by the general level of the Valley.
Q. Well, if the general level of the Valley would rise, wouldn't that affect these lands here?
A. No, it would not.
Q. Why?
A. It is conceivable that the whole Stony

p. 3017

Creek drainage area might have a normal rainfal and the balance of the Sacramento Valley have an abnormal rainfall, which would mean a rise in other sections of the Valley and no excessive rise in this area. The ground waters in the lands here would only be affected by the irrigation operations above it or by the run-off and rainfall conditions within the general drainage area.
Q. The ground water here, of course, in reference to your testimony that it comes from the watershed of Stony Creek, is kept up by contributions from all sides; for example, by contributions from water stored for irrigation on the Orland Project?
A. It is.
Q. At this time of the year, is there any water in the Creek going by these lands?
A. There is none.
Q. They are using no pumps on these lands at the present time--that is, in this section that we are referring to in the Answer?
A. No.
MR. FREEMAN: Q. They pump for the Mills Orchards don't they?
A. Yes.
MR. MORTON: We are talking about the Sugar Company. I think that is all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. FREMAN: Q. As to the matter of the surface water being affected by the general conditions of the Sacramento Valley--
MR. MORTON: (Interrupting) I didn't refer to the surface water.
MR. FREEMAN: Didn‘t you?
MR. MORTON: No; the underground water.
MR. FREEMAN: I think you are right.

p. 3018

Q. Now, do you know the topography of the elevations of the lands south of Stony Creek; do they go higher as you leave Stony Creek for a distance and then get lower again?
A. As a ruie, the elevation increases as the distance decreases from Stony Creek; in other words, the slope is away from the stream.
Q. And thence to the Sacramento River--that is, the drainage?
A. Most of the area covered by the Orland Project would waste its waters into the River north of Jacinto. It is probable that some ot the waters from lands southwest of Orland would ultimately reach the trough and not reach the Rivar excepting at Knight's Landing.
Q. Now, I call your attention to one feature that has not been brought out, and that is, when the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company began the subdivision of their lands, they began to irrigate from the Sacramento River, along the West side of the Sacramento, from what we call the West Side Canal--
A. (interrupting) The River Branch Canal.
Q. Now, the watar level was not disturbed in any way north of a point about Jacinto--just how far I don’t know, but you can tell me where the deep drain was constructed by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company; you know about that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was done for the purpose of taking care of the underground waters that accumulated from irrigation?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were not affected by any water that was diverted from Stony Creek, but altogether by the irrigation by the Company, as they diverted from the Sacramento River mostly?
A. Mostly from the Sacramento River.

p. 3019

Q. Now, in that situation, your troubles were at that time, weren't they, that the alfalfa and other crops below a line running, say, directly north of Jacinto--I don’t know just where it did come out there--but I have in mind the Mudd Ranch--it began to bother there--the surface waters began to rise until the crops there were destroyed and some were drowned out even as far down as Quint, near Willows--you remember that, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, when that drainage was over, there was a constant flow for a number of years in that drain?
A. Yes.
Q. As long as there was any irrigation up there?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was practicaliy abandoned for a time--that is, the growth of alfalfa; I remember some crops that were destroyed and the land turned back to the Company by reason of the drainage being not sufficient to carry it?
A. Yes.
Q. But that drainage eventually went into the trough and went to Knight's Landing and back into the River?
A. Yes, all drainage from points near Jacinto reached the Sacramento River at Knight's Landing.
Q. Did you ever observe or know of any drainage on that side of the River, the west side, above Jacinto, that struck the Sacramento River from the surface watere?
A. Yes.
Q. How far north would be the first time you ever observed that?
A. Beginning a half mile north of Jacinto.
Q. You found it running in from the bank and seeping through to the Sacrameto River?
A. No, I have never observed any material amounts of water seeping into the River from the banks.
Q. Did you find water seeping into the River from the sand bars, from the mouth of Stony Creek after the water ceased to

p. 3020

run on the surface of the Creek bed?
A. Yes, there is always water there after the surface flow discontinues.
Q. In your opinion, none of that water ever reaches the river at a point north of Jacinto--that went along there and into the Sacramento River as seepage water--drainage water--from underneath the surface, from Stony Creek and other streams that come in above there?
A. Yes.
Q. The water I am talking about now never reached the Sacramento River by seepage or any other way, but it went through the trough.
A. The waters from the lands that you referred to, of the irrigation companies, northwest of Jacinto, never did reach the River.
Q. They went down through the trough and if they ever reached the River at all it would be at Knight's Landing?
A. Yes.
Q. And that increased in capacity as the irrigation increased?
A. Very noticeably.
Q. And then as the irrigation ceased that diminished the amount of water in that drain?
A. Yes.
Q. But there was a flow of water in that drain every year almost continuously?
A. Yes, at all times of the year.
MR. FREEMAN: That is all.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

MR. HANKINS: Q. With reference to the lands concerning which you are testifying, did they ever, or could they ever, receive any water from the River Branch Canal?
A. Which lands?
Q. The Sugar Company lands that you are testifying about.
A. No, the River Branch Canal is many miles south of these lands; there is no relation at all between them.

p. 3021

MR. HANKINS: That is all.
MR. MORTON: That is all.

- - - - - - -

THE MASTER: It is noon now and we will adjourn until 1:30 P.M.

- - - - - - -

p. 3022

AFTERNOON SESSION - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 1923 - 1:30 P.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
P.W. Dent, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco
For The United States

Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
For their respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - -

p. 3042

JOHN P. RYAN.

recalled as a witness in behalf of defendant JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION, testified as followes:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. FREEMAN: Q. Mr. Ryan, you are acquainted with the properties known as the James Mills Orchards Corporation?
A. I am.
Q. And where are they located; that is, not all of them, but those on Stony Creek?
A. The properties of the James Mills Orchards Corporation involved in this suit are west of the town of Hamilton and are a portion of the Capay Rancho.
A. Are they located on this map (indicating Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2)?
A. They are located on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 and shown in green with a red caption and marked "James Mills Orchards Corporation". That map seems to indicate correctly the relative location of the property.
Q. Of the Orchards properties?
A. Yes. The correct legal description of the property is referred to on the map filed in the office of the Recorder and the correct description is given in the Answer of the Orchards Corporation in this matter.
Q. That is the description to be found on page 1 of the Answer?
A. Yes, that is the correct legal description.
Q. You made this map yourself (handing map to witness)?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know the character of the lands as to production of crops and what kind of crops?
A. All of the agricultural area, which is all of the lands with the exception of a small tract in the bed of Stony Creek,

p. 3043

is now planted to either orchard or alfalfa.
Q. And is producing crops?
A. And is producing crops.
Q. How long has it been in that condition, or when did the Orchards Corporation begin the growing of alfalfa on the land, or other crops?
A. The first planting of the irrigated crops on that land was in the year 1913.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Mills Orchards Corporation.
Q. Was it begun by the Mills Orchards Corporation or the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company?
Q. It was begun by the James Mills Orchards Corporation, which was at that time a subsidiary of the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company. The acreage planted to trees has been increased each year since that date, as has the acreage irrigated been increased each year from that date.
Q. And is that entire area of land you have described on this map--that in green on Exhibit No. 2--contiguous to Stony Creek?
A. It is.
Q. All of it?
A. All of it.
Q. How was the water obtained for the irrigation of the lands; from what source?
A. All of the water is obtained from wells tapping the underground gravel channels.
Q. On which side of the Creek is it situated?
A. The Orchards Corpoeation land is entirely on the east side of Stony Creek--the east and north side.
Q. How close to the Creek?
A. The wells?
Q. Yes.
A. One of the wells of the Orchards Corporation is one hundred feet from the levee, which is probably the bank of the Creek; the stream at that point is a wide shifting

p. 3044

stream having no well-defined banks, so it is difficult to say where the actual stream bed is, but the bank, as we have usually defined it, is at the levee.
Q. Then, you define the bank as some old levee that was constructed on the north side of the Creek?
A. Yes, a levee was constructed there in 1914 or 1915 by the Orchards Corporation.
Q. Did you ever make any surveys as to any lands belonging to the Mills Orchards lying away from that levee and towards the Creek?
A. I have made a detailed survey there to show the different channels of the stream.
Q. Under different ownerships?
A. The Esperanza Land Corporation owns the major portion of the stream bed opposite the Orchards Corporation holdings.
Q. That is, the major portion of it--measured from what particular point on the stream?
A. The major portion of the land outside of the levee and up to the center of the stream, is not owned by the Orchards Corporation but is owned by the Esperanza Land Corporation.
Q. Then, you would have to go over the Esperanza Lands in order to reach the stream now; that is, the stream that is running on the surface?
A. No, not at all points; at one point--the orchard in the southwest corner of the Orchards property--the property line reaches to the center of the stream bed.
Q. From that point, however, the whole land of the Mills Orchards Corporation is contiguous?
A. It is.
Q. I think you gave me the date when they started to irrigate.
A. 1913.
Q. How--by pumps?
A. By means of pumps from wells.
Q. Have they been operated since?

p. 3045

A. They have been operated each and every year since then.
Q. Are the pumps being increased in capacity in any way?
A. The older pumps are not being increased in capacity, but new wells have been installed since the beginning of this work and also since the date of the Exhibits prepared by Mr. Eririksen. I have here a map prepared by Mr. Eriksen marked "G-725-B.R.-2", with no title which shows but three wells on the Orchards property. Since that date a well was put in and operated for a period on Lot No. 1130. One has also recently been finished and is this year on Lot 1133, and an orchard is also being partly irrigated from a well now situated on the land of the Esperanza Land Corporation as shown on this same map in Lot No, 1062 as Well No. 5 . Those are the only changes or corrections from this Exhibit that I referred to.
Q. Have you a map of the subdivision of this tract or of land giving the number of lots?
A. This map which I have just refered to by number correctly shows the lot numbers of the Orchards Corporation's holdings.
Q. And located on that map and shown where they are located with reference to Stony Creek?
A. Yes.
Q. And the number of acres in each lot?
A. The number of acres is not represented on this map.
Q. Have you the number of acres, so that you can put them on this map?
A. On a tabulation attached to this map, there is a statement that the acreage owned by the Orchards Corporation is 1190 acres, which I believe is correct. We usually refer to it as 1200 acres.
O. Do you know who made the estimate?
A. I believe that this was prepared by Mr. Eriksen. The original map of the subdivision and the determination of acreage was

p. 3046

made by me or under my direction in 1911.
Q. By your direction?
A. Under my direction.
Q. I thought so.
A. This map which I am referring to is a copy of that map, showing the relative location of the different lots, without showing the acreage of each lot.
Q. And the tabulation was made after that and attached to the map?
A. A tabulation is attached to the map and is part of it.
Q. Is part of the map?
A. Yes.
Q. Has it been used for that purpose since that time?
A. I didn't catch that.
Q. Has it been used for showing the number of acres in each lot since that time?
A. The map which I prepared and which is on file in the Recorder’s Office is the one that has been used.
Q. How long has that tabulation been attached to the map you have there?
A. This tabulation here is one prepared by Mr. Eriksen and is not on file in the Recorder's Office.
Q. I will ask you some questions about this map then. This is marked "G-725-B.R.-2". Do you know how that map was made or when it was made--call it a map or a diagram or whatever you may determine.
A. I don't know. I believe it was made by Mr. Eriksen or under his direction.
Q. Now, referring to this map, "G-725-B.R.-2" do you know how that map came into existence; tell us what it is.
A. This is a map which apparently correctly represents the different lands adjacent to or near Stony Creek and in the Capay Rancho. The different tracts are indicated by lot numbers or by ownership.
Q. What else does it portray?
A. It also indicates, in- [sic]

p.3047

so far as the holdings of the James Mills Orchards Corpoation are concerned, the lot numbers, the use to which the land had been put at the time of the preparation of this map, or to which the land had been put about two years ago, and it also shows the building improvements and the location of four wells on the Orchards Corporation lands, as well as certain wells on the holdings of the Esperanza Land Corporation adjacent and contiguous to the Orchards Corporation lands. All of this information is, I believe, correctly represented upon this map.
Q. Does it show the location of Stony Creek or any other streams in and about the locality of those lands?
A. It shows the location of the levee constructed by the James Mills Orchards Corporation, and it shows the different banks and the center of the stream bed of Stony Creek on the property adjacent to or touching the Orchards Corporation lands.
Q. And that is shown as running through the lands that you have described as belonging to the James Mills Orchards Corporation?
A. The bank of Stony Creek is indicated by a thatched line on this map and touches the Orchards Corporation property at two or more points, and the stream line of the Creek, which is correctly represnted on this map by a dashed line, also correctly represents the line of the land on the northwest corner.
Q. In what direction does the stream run?
A. In a general southeasterly direction.
Q. And begins in the mountains and goes in an easterly direction, running into the Sacramento River?
A. Yes.
Q. And these lands of the Mills Orchards Corporation are contiguous to that stream?
A. They are.
Q. Have you made any examination as to the supply of water from these pumps when used for irrigation?

p. 3048

A. I have had occasion to measure the flow, from a couple of the wells. All of that record I have not with me at this time.
Q. Well, we won't go into that until you get it, because I want you to give me the different features in regard to the flow of the underground waters.
A. The average discharge of the pumps operating at this time is about 2-1/2 to 3 second feet each. Those wells vary in depth from 100 to 300 feet.
Q. Are those matters marked on the map that you have just identified?
A. The depth of the wells is not marked upon the map. I have the information regarding that available, however, for each well, in a general way.
Q. Well, then, you can put those figures on your map, can you?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, then; please do it.
MR. MORTON: What figures are you going to put on the map; I don't get that.
MR. FREEMAN: The figures of the depth of the wells indicated on the map.
THE WITNESS: On this Map I have added in pencil the location of two wells which I have designated as 1922 Well and 1923 Well, those being the dates of the construction of the wells. That, then, gives a complete location of all of the wells of the Orchards Corporation upon their property.
MR. FREEMAN: Q. I ask you further then, Mr. Ryan, in regard to the matter of the location of the Creeks--the other Creeks that run in and about or near that land and to which the land is contiguous--the various streams furnishing water to these wells--

p. 3049

MR. MORTON: We object to the form of the question for the reason that there is no foundation for any assumption of the fact that these streams are supplying these wells. We have only Stony Creek and we have that testified to as touching these lands in two places and we have no testimony to the effect that Stony Creek is the place from which these wells have been pumpuing water.
MR. FREEMAN: Have you that data with you now as to your observation and knowledge of the situation as to the supplying of water for these wellø?
A. Well No. 1, being on Lot 1117, is 165 feet deep. The gravel strata is encountered in that well up to about 47% of the total depth. All of those gravel wells are similar in character and appearance to the gravels now appearing upon the bed of Stony Creek. An analysis of the water which I made also indicates that it is the same water that now flows in Stony Creek. It has the same chemical constituents and apparently the same source of supply. Observations made in 1920 indicate a very definite relation between the flow of water in Stony Creek and the water level in the different wells on the Orchards Corporation property, including Well No. 1. The same records were continued during the year 1921. I have not those records with me.
MR. FREEMAN: (Interrupting) I am not feeling well, and I would like to ask that you take an adjournment, Mr. Master.
MR. MASTER: Very well we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10:00 o’clock.

- - - - - -

p. 3050

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

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1923 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
P.W. Dent, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco
For The United States

Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
A.M. McCoy, Esq., of Messrs. McCoy & Gans, Red Bluff, Calif.
For their respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - - -

p. 3066

JOHN P. RYAN,

Recalled as witness in behalf of Defendant JAMES MILLS ORCHARD CORPORATION, and ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION, testified as follows

DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. FREEMAN: Q. Mr. Ryan, have you the data now in regard to the numbers of those lots and their location and their connection with the waters from Stony Creek, that you testified to?
A. I have.
Q. Will you put in that data that you have; that is, the numbers of the lots and where they are located in connection with the Creek?
A. I have here a map entitled, "Map of a Portion of the Capay Rancho, Showing Lands Riparian to Stony Creek". This map was prepared by me in February of 1922.
Q. This was prepared for the purpose of showing and establishing riparian rights?
A. And also for showing the location of the wells and banks of streams and other incidental data connected with those lands in this case.
Q. Put that data on and--
A. (interrupting) On this map I have outlined in red the properties of the James Mills Orchards Corporation and I have also outlined in red circles the location of the wells of the Orchards Corporation, as well as wells on the Esperanza Land Corporation's lands.
Q. That is the data that I wanted. Do you know that there is no break in the title to those lands?
A. At this time I couldn't pass on that prior to 1913. I have data in the office on which I could check on it for the last 30 years.
Q. I wish that you would take care of that so that we can use it tomorrow or Tuesday.

p. 3067

A. On this particular map I have tabulations showing the Central Canal diversions; that is testimony which was brought out in the previous hearing, both I think on your direct examination and Mr. Hankins'.
MR. MORTON: It is the the other way around. Mr. Hankins examined you on direct examination.
Do you want to introduce that map, Mr. Freeman?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, I want to introduce it.
Q. I suppose that covers the Esperanza lands as well as the James Mills Orchards lands?
A. Yes, that also shows the holdings of the Esperanza Land Corporation; and it shows also the holdings of the Sacramento Sugar Company, on which I testified the day before yesterday.
THE MASTER: You say you made this map, Mr. Ryan?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it correctly show the various features of which you have spoken?
A. It does.
THE MASTER: Is this map offered for all purposes or simply for purposes of illustration?
MR. FRREMAN: Both. I want to allow, as conclusively aa I can the proposition of the rlparian claims by showing the continuity of the lands without any break, back to 1890.
MR. MORTON: But that map has no connection with the title.
MR. FREEMAN: No, I know that.
MR. MORTON: We have no objection to the introduction of the map.
THE MASTER: It is offered for all purposes.
MR. MORTON: Just a moment if you please, Mr. Master. I don’t quite understand the significance of offering the map for all purposes.

p. 3068

MR. FREEMAN: It couldn’t go outside the pleadings, anyway, could it? I wouldn’t want that.
MR. MORTON: We can see the purpose of offering it for illustration of the testimony, but as to having the various notations on the map accepted as evidence, as distinguished from the illustration of evidence, I think I would want to object to it on the ground of its not being competent. It is perfectly good for illustrative purposes, however.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, perfectly good for that, but when I get my Abstract along the lines which I have suggested here, a sort of a skeleton showing when the claims here came into possession of the Corporations here--when they purchased the property--that there has been no change or difference in the chain of title, being connected with the waters of Stony Creek.
MR. MORTON: Then, that map would be mainly for illustration of that testimony?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
MR. MORTON: Then I imagine its introduction for illustrative purposes would be sufficient to cover that.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
MR. MORTON: We have no objection to the introduction of the map for the purpose of showing the location of the lands with reference to Stony Creek, if that is the point involved.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, that is the principal one.
THE MASTER: I will sustain the objection to the introduction of the map in so far as it goes to prove tha depths of these wells or anything of that character, but it is admitted for other purposes. This is marked "Map of a Portion of the Capay Rancho showing Lands Riparian to Stony Creek, J.P. Ryan.

p.3069

Engineer, Feb.--192-" and will be marked "Defendant Mills Orchards Corporation Exhibit A".
MR. MORTON: I would not want to be in the position of acquiescing in the idea that this map shows what lands are riparian to Stony Creek. I have no objection to its showing the situation of the lands with reference to Stony Creek, but when you speak of lands being riparian, there are a number of things involved. Now, as to those particular lands--how much of those lands might be riparian--there might be only one quarter section, by reason of the condition of the title.
MR. FREEMAN: Sureely.
THE MASTER: Well, of couse, the map speaks for itself as to what it shows.
MR. MORTON: The only thing is, it says "Lands Riparian to Stony Creek", and I would not want to concede that that map shows the lands riparian to Stony Creek, by a long ways.
THE MASTER: But that is only in the title of the map.
MR. FREEMAN: What I want to show merely is this--to visualize that the lands that are now bøing watered from these wells are a contiguous proposition, so far as the ownership is concerned. That is the testimony that I want to put in, and of course this map will assist me in that.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Freeman, at this time it might be well to bring up some of the points made in the previous hearing at which you were not present, due to sickness. I appeared on that date as a witness for the James Mills Orchards Corporation and the Esperanza Land Corporation and presented a considerable portion of the data which we have already repeated in the testimony at this hearing. At that time I made a statement which I would like to repeat--that the Orchards Corporation and the Eperanza Land Corporation had not at any time diverted water

p. 3070

directly from the surface flow or stream bed of Stony Creek, and on Cross Examination it was brought out that at this time we had no intention or plans of immediate action, or any action, towards such diversions from the surface flow of Stony Creek
MR. FREEMAN: I have practically said that myself in admissions that I have made.
THE MASTER: Well, I think there should be something in the record to show whether you authorized that action of Mr. Ryan's. His appearing here was somewhat peculiar, without the aid of Counsel, and I would like you to ratify that if that is satisfactory to you.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, I have confirmed his statement absolutely, and if I had been here I probably would not have put it in quite as concise language as he has, so I am not criticising his action at all, and I want it to be accepted with my full approval.

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. In the James Mills Orchards case, Mr. Ryan, we have the same situation, have we not, generally speaking, as in the other cases to which you have testified, to-wit, that the irrigation of the lands immediately above these lands, that is, in the valley immediately above, on the Orland Project, has a tendency to maintain during the summer, the level of the water table under these lands, by reason of this irrigration and storage of water above?
A. It is my opinion that it does.
Q. Now, you. speak of an analysis of the water under these lands and an analysis of the water in Stony Creek. You didn't intend to imply, did you, Mr. Ryan, that that water, all of it, or any particular part of it, came directly from Stony Creek right opposite the lands, but came from the Stony Creek Water

p. 3071

Shed and constituted the same water that was in the Water Shed?
A. That was my intention.
Q. In other words, that the contributions of water to the water table were from the waters in the Stony Creek Water Shed, however they might get to that water table?
A. Yes, that is my view. I believe that in my previous testimoney [sic], I definitely stated that--that I was unable to state definitely a direct connection with the stream bed, but I was firmly convinced from the analysis and other evididence I have taken that it was from that one common source.
Q. This irrigation of the lands, Mr. Ryan, and pacticularly on the Orland Project, has a tendency also to keep the flow up in Stony Creek to a certain extent during the summer, does it not, that is, below the lands; there is some drainage in Stony Creek from thosø lands?
A. Very little; practically none.
MR. MORTON: That is all. THE MASTER: We will take a recess at tis time until 2 P.M.

p. 3072

AFTERNOON SESSION, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1923 - 2:00 P.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
P.W. Dent, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco
For The United States

Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
For his respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - - -

JOHN P. RYAN,

recalled as a witness in behalf of Defendants JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION and ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. FREEMAN: Q. Now, Mr. Ryan, you have got some other maps here. Will you please state what they are and what they show and if you made them and so on.
A. I have here a small blueprint entitled "Jacinto Irrigation District, Ground Water Investigations; Graph of Mills Orchards Wells showing effect of Stony Creek in 1920". On this blue-print is a sketch showing the relation to each other and to Stony Creek of the numerous wells shown in more detail on Exhibit A of the James Mills Orchards Corporation, and also this blueprint shows the fluctuations in the water level of many of these wells during the period of March, April, May, June and July, of 1920. This diagram or blueprint was prepared by myself and its purpose is to show the direct relation between the water level and these wells and the flow in Stony Creek. During that particular year Stony Creek was dry in its lower stretch through the property of the Esperanza Land Corporation

p. 3073

and the James Mills Orchards Corporation, excepting for a very brief period between the 15th and 20th day of April, during which time there was a small flow, the amount not being known, and this diagram then shows the rise of the water level in the wells. The figures are on the lefthand side of the plat or diagram to show the elevatlons above sea level of the difrerent lands, according to the United States Geological Survey data, so that these graphs show the proper relationship between the different wells.
MR. FREEMAN: We will offer this diagram as Exhibit B.
Q. These figures and the data you have on there were obtained by yourself?
A. They were.
MR. MORTON: Just one question. Q. Which wells are they?
A. The number that are indicated on the graph line and are also indicated on the sketch map on the right-hand side.
Q. Wells Nos. 6 and 8--are those the numbers?
A. Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: Q, The same wells that you testified to?
A. The wells covered by this graph being wells Nos. 5, 6. 7, and 8. and B.
Q. Wells 5, 6, 7, 8 and B?
A. Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: The description will appear in the record, I think, satisfactorily.
MR. MORTON: Q. You have just placed a well that you call well No. 7 upon this plat, Mr. Ryan; you approximated that location, dldn't you?
A. Very close, yes.
Q. How did you know it was there, rather than at a point possibly a quarter of an inch south?
A. I was going to describe it more in detail, giving the location of the well. It is on the northeast quarter of Lot 1056.
Q. This graph or this sheet, showing some so-called graphs of

p. 3074

the wells logs is taken from what? That were your original records; in what form were they?
A. The original records were weekly and, in some cases during that rapidly changing period, daily readings taken under my general direction by the pump man of the James Mills Orchards Corporation.
Q. By whom were they taken?
A. Mr. Thode.
Q. Who is he?
A. He has direct charge of the operation of the pumps on the Mills Orchards lands.
Q. How did he take these readlngs--with what?
A. By dropping a weight connected with a string from the top of the casing down.
Q. To the bottom of the well?
A. To the water level.
Q. How did he know when he got to the water level?
A. He usually indicated that by the splash of the weight, attached.
A. Would you regard that as an accurate method?
A. Yes, within two or three-tenths.
Q. By listening to a splash?
A. Yes. The weight is attached to a string and then dropped slowly down until it strikes the water add then raised and dropped slowly until the point is reached where the water is at.
Q. Were you ever present when any of these measurements were taken?
A. No. I think on that particular graph, or for the records shown on that particular graph, I was not present. Similar studies were made at a later date, but were not reported on that particular sheet.
Q. In what form did the records get to you?
A. The records were given to me in a rough graph showing the depth from the top of the casing down to the water level.

p. 3075

and they were prepared by this man, were they?--these graphs so-called?
A. Yes; I would hardly call them graphs, but he had a horizontal line on a certaln sheet of cross-section paper and on that he indicated the depth of the water at the different points and drew his line across so that uslng that data and correcting it back to sea level elevations of the top of the casing--data which I had in my possession before that--a graph was properly presented there.
Q. You didn’t have, then, the figures, did you, on a drawing by this man; is that the idea?
A. And the figures too.
Q. And those figures were in feet?
A. In feet and inches.
Q. In what way did you direct this, Mr. Ryan; how do you mean, when you say it was made under your direction?
A. As Engineer of the Company, I simply instructed and requested them to take measurements from the casing down and keep a record of it.
Q. The man was under the command of an Officer of the Company rather than yourself?
A. Yes, I am simply the Engineer of the Company.
Q. But this man wasn't one of your force; he was a member of the Company?
A. He was an employe of the Company.
MR. MORTON: For the purposes of the record, I will say that I am more or less unfamiliar with this feature of it and am therefore not prepared, offhand, to accept the document as it stands without objection. I therefore object to the introduction of tha paper for the reason that it is not the best evidence and is incompetent. I imagine that even if the ruling should be in my favor on the objection, it should go in under rule 46, in any event, and the objection is made of course for

p. 3076

the purposes of the record, rather than anything else.
THE MASTER: The objection is overruled. The document to which we have been referring will be received as "James Mills Orchards Corporation Exhibit B".
MR. FREEMAN: Q. Now, you are acquainted with the Esperanza Land situation?
A. Yes, I am.
MR. MORTON: This graph has reference to the Mills Orchards, has it not?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
MR. MORTON: And you are passing over to the Esperanza?
MR. MORTON: Yes, so as to introduce it in the Esperanza case.
MR. MORTON: I think I would like to ask Mr. Ryan a question or two on this particular thing, first.

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. Mr. Ryan, you have added Well No. 7 to this map; that isn't a well that was used, is it?
A. That well is not used, and never has keen used for irrigation purposes; it is a domestic well.
A. Is it in use for domestic purposes?
A. It is used for the purpose of watering stock in that particular field.
Q. There is a pump in it?
A. Yes, these is a pump in it.
Q. You have no graph for Well No. 4?
A. No, I have not.
Q How far is Well No. 4 from the River, if you know?
MR. FREEMAN: Do you mean the River or the Creek, Mr. Morton?
MR. MORTON: The Creek.
A. Well No. 4 is one mile north of Stony Creek, that being the nearest point.

p.3077

Q. Wells No. 6, 8 and B are within a few feet of Stony Creek, are they?
A. Well No. 6 is less than 600 feet from the stream channel and water channel of Stony Creek. Well No. 8 is within 200 feet.
Q. And Well No. B?
A.. Well No. B in within 300 feet.
Q. Now, Mr. Ryan, you said that Stony Creek came up for a little while in April of that year. You mean that it was dry in March and February?
A. Yes.
Q. That it was dry then--that the bed of the Creek was dry?
A. Yes.
Q. And that it was dry after this short time in April?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was it dry?
A. At all points in the lower stream it was dry.
Q. When it came up did it rain about that time in April?
A. We had a little shower; I couldn’t be sure about the cause of that rise.
Q. It did come up because there was a rainy condition then, wasn't there?
A. I think probably.
Q. Wouldn't that rainy condition cause the ground water to rise by reason of the contributions to the surface of the ground?
A. Very little. The result of observing a hundred or more wells in this general neighborhood indicates that there is a very small relation between rainfall and ground water level. There would be some effect due to rainfall, undoubtedly.
Q. As a matter of fact, if there was any rain there at that time, there was a certain surface drainage there on the land; there was water running over the land on the

p. 3078

drainage channels wherever they were?
A. On this particular land, we have practically no run-off. Whatever rainfall comes almost immediately soaks into the ground.
Q. How deep is the soil there before you get to gravel, ordinarily?
A. It ranges from 10 to 20 feet.
Q. What kind of soil is that?
A. It is mostly a loam, or a silty, loam soil.
Q. It admits of water and is readily irrigated?
A. Yes.
Q. The rain water sinks right into it?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it so that right off the lands a little distance away, you have a more shallow soil, or some slight drainage into a depression, and that there was some considerable contribution to the water table from the surface flow?
A. No, that does not exist.
Q. Anywhere in that locality?
A. No.
Q. And you are prepared to testify that there is no contribution from the rainfall to the water table?
A. No measurable contribution.
Q. But there might be a contribution, might there not, from the lands above, by the percolation and seepage processes by reason of the irrigation above?
A. Yes, that might happen.
Q. Of course, the results of irrigation above a piece of land are not felt immediately on land a mile or two away in the water table?
A. Not as a rule.
Q. There might be a considerable time elapse befere that would be felt? A. Yes.
Q. Depending upon the distance and the condition of the soil and such other elements as enter into the problems--even weeks might elapse, or months, before there would be a direct

p. 3079

showing in the rise of the water table below?
A. Those things might happen.

FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. FREEMAN: Q. You have another map there, have you, Mr. Ryan?
A. I have here certain logs of wells bored on the property of the James Mills Orchards Corporation and the Esperanza Land Corporation, north of Stony Creek. These wells were bored in 1912 and 1913. At that time I was not directly connected with or had anything whatever to do with the operations of the Orchards Company and didn’t have anything to do with the boring of these wells, except that I was present at numerous times when they were being bored, as an employe of the company on other matters. With that preliminary, then, I have here a logs [sic] of wells Nos. 1, 2, B, 4, 5, 6,and 7.
Q. Well No. 7 has not been used for irrigation, has it?
A. No, Well No. 7 has not been used for irrigation. Instead of attempting to introduce these, which are originals, I would like to read them--to read off the depth of the wells and the percentage of gravel in them.
MR. MORTON: Q. What is the paper which you are reading from?
A. These are the logs of the wells referred to, showing the material encountered and the depth at which it was encountered.
Q. Who prepared them?
A. They were prepared under the direction of E.C. Mills, Engineer.
Q. Did you have anything to do with them yourself?
A. No.
Q. How did they come into your possession?
A. As Engineer for the James Mills Orchards Corporation. These statements

p. 3080

were turned over to me.
Q. What authentication do they bear?
A. None whatever.
Q. What do you personally know about them?
A. I was present when probably most of the wells were being bored and had occation [sic] to observe the materials which were coming out of the hole. I know just in a general way that these are typical of conditions which I observed, but I have no written memorandum as to what I observed coming out at the time.
Q. What I want to know is what you know about these papers that you have here--what you know of their authenticity--what you know about how they were prepared and under what conditions and how they happened to be prepared?
A. Contracts were let by the Orchards Company to certain well borers. The contract provided that the well driller was to prepare a log of all wells bored and submit that to the Engineer. That was verified at intervals by E.C. Mills, the Engineer, who checked the work of all their operations which was a daily performance. From that data and the data submitted by the well borers, Mr. Mills had these diagrams prepared. They were in turn turned over to the Company and ultimately reached my hands.
A. Was that some kind of a special job or was that done in the ordinary course of business and then became a part of the files of the Company.
A.m [?] The James Mills Orchards Corporation at that time was a planting corporation; it did not directly bore any of these wells, work being done by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, of which I was Assistant Chief Engineer at that particular time, I believe, or Chief Engineer, not in direct charge of this work, however. Mills was an

p. 3081

Engineer connected with the Company and had direct charge of this particular feature. The records, then, were prepared in the office of the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company and were retained in that Company’s file instead of the Mills Orchards Company file, with copies in the Orchards Company file, until they came into my possession about a year ago.
Q. You said, I think, in the beginning that those were the originals; what do you mean by that?
A. They are tracings prepared from the original data submitted by the Engineer or the well borer, but they do not, of course ,-represent [sic] the original log of the well borer, which was just a scrap of paper.
Q. They are copies in other words, of his records? A. Yes, the original records in all cases being destroyed, the procedure being at that time that the well driller stuck up a piece of paper on his well drilling outfit, and that was marked by him, as well as the Engineer, and that was afterwards taken into the office and tracings prepared.
MR. FREEMAN: Q. Mr. Ryan, at the time you mentioned, in connection with these two corporations--in fact you mentioned one or two others--but those two particularly--the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company was the parent company of all of those companies at that particularly [sic] time. They owned all these lands and afterwards formed these companies to operate for them and carried certain things in some and certain things in others, and all the records were used as a common product for all purposes, and all its engineering data as well; wasn’t that true?
A. That is correct.

p. 3082

Q. They furnished the money and owmed all those lands and then afterwards created the James Mills Orchards Company, the Esperanza Company and perhaps one or two other companies further on down the River?
A. Excepting that at the time these wells were bored the property had been transferred to the Orchards Company, but all construction work of all kinds was being carried on by the Irrigation Company.
Q. The construction work was all done by the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company and then afterwards turned into a subsidiary company by the parent company when they got ready to receive it?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. The Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company was the central point for all those propositions at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. The engineering and the sales and everything else came right from there?
A. Yes.
Q. And the same organization?
A. Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: That is all.
THE WITNESS: I will read, then, the depths of these different wells and their location and the depths of the different material encountered; in other words, read the log directly into the record.
MR. FREEMAN: You may go ahead with it.
THE WITNESS: Well No. 1, completed in July, 1912, is located in the southeast quarter of Lot 1117, as shown on Exhibit A of the Orchards Company. Measured from the ground surface, it was 10 feet to clay, 12 feet to water, 15 feet to the first gravel strata, 30 feet to the bottom of the first strata; between 30 and 45 feet a strata of clay; between 45 and 64, a strata of gravel; between 64 and 87 a strata of

p. 3083

clay and gravel; beween 87 and 108, a strata of sand and gravel; between 108 and 140, a strata of clay; between 140 and 155, a strata of gravel; and from 155 to the bottom of the well, 165, a strata of clay.

Well No. 2, being located in the southeast quarter of Lot 1131, was completed in July, 1912. From the surface to 8 feet, a strata of loam soil; from 8 feet to 27, a strata of gravel; from 27 to 45, yellow clay; from 45 to 60, a strata of gravel; from 60 to 90, yellow clay; and from 90 to 110, coarse gravel.

Well No. 3 is directly north of well No. 2 and has practically the same log, being but a few feet apart.

Well No. B, in the northwest quarter of Lot 1121. From the surface to 12 feet, a strata of loam soil; from 12 to 13, a strata of gravel; from 13 to 23, a strata of yellow clay; from 23’ to 126, a strata of gravel; and from 126 to 139 feet, a strata of yellow clay.

MR. MORTON: (interrupting) Q. All of these wells that you are speaking about are not necessarily shown on this map which I have in my hand.
A. They are all shown, I think, with the possible exception of No. 7 and No. B. Mr. Eriksen’s record there, I believe, was intended to be primarily irrigation wells, as he viewed it, and I am presenting the logs of numerous wells, some of which may have collapsed and been abandoned or only used for domestic purposes.
Q. Then, some of the wells to which you are now referring may not be in use for irrigation purposes; they have been abandoned, in other words?
A. At least one I know of, without recalling the number,

p. 3084

has collapsed and been abandoned.

Well No. 4, in the southwest quarter of Lot 1135, was completed in April, 1913. From the surface to 14 feet, loam soil; from 14 to 25, gravel; from 25 to 35, clay; from 30 to 63, gravel; from 63 to 67, clay; from 75 to 82, gravel from 82 to 88, clay; from 88 to 134, gravel; from 134 to 150, the bottom of the well, clay;

Well No. 5, from the surface to 8 feet, loam soil; from 8 to 9, gravel; from 9 to 20, clay; from 20 to 28, gravel; from 28 to 35, clay; from 35 to 70, gravel; from.75 to 85, sand; 85 to 88, clay; 88 to 98, gravel; 98 to 116, clay; 116 to 123, gravel; 133 [sic] to 128, clay; 128 to 133, gravel; 133 to 150, clay;

Well No. 6, in the southwest quarter of Lot 1053. From the surface to 10 feet, loam soil; from 10 feet to 34 feet, gravel; from 34 to 43, clay; 43 to 75, gravel; 75 to 96, red sand; 96 to 100, cement sand; 100 to 123, gravel; 123 to 145, blue clay; 145 to 147, gravel; 147 to 150, clay; 150 to 169, gravel; 169 to 186, clay.

MR. MORTON: Q. That lot is where with reference to Lot No. 1153; I don’t find 1153 [sic] on my map.
A. 1053--right along Stony Creek; that is, up in the southwest corner of the Esperanza Land holdings--No. 6.
MR. MORTON: I see now.
THE WITNESS: Well No. 7, in the northeast quarter of Lot 1056. From the Surface to 15 feet, soil; from 15 to 28, gravel; from 28 to 50, clay; from 50 to 103, gravel; 103 to 150, clay; that well having been completed in June of 1913. That oompletes these logs.
MR. FREEMAN: That is all.

p. 3085

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. MORTON: Q. Why did they dig the wells so deep, do you know?
A. At that time no studies had been made as to capacities that might be obtained from a well and it was the opinion of the Chief Engineer that a well 150 feet deep would sufficient, so that the first contract provided in a general way that all wells should be 150 feet deep; that was a matter of opinion of the Chief Engineer, in charge.
Q. The logs of those wells rather indicate that you have a number of artesian strata there, don’t they?
A. There are no artesian strata at all.
Q. And no rise of the water at all?
A. Practically none; there might be in a few of these wells a slight rise, but it is very slight.
Q. Are these lower gravel strata, if you know personally, water bearing strata?
A. Yes, they are; water is obtained in all of the strata.
Q. Then there is no real way of telling whether you wouldn’t have some rise from one of those strata up to the next one; your water in your well is just a certain height and it is contributed to by all these strata?
A. We have assumed, without having any definite informaton on this water, that all of these strata were contributing some of the water which we were pumping, and I feel that is the case.
Q. Those strata seem to correspond fairly well; in other words, that you have a pretty consistent clay stratum down a certain distance, and a fairly constant distance--from 15 to 18 feet--and then a gravel stratum, and then another clay stratum. Now, do you know whether or not they approach

p. 3086

the surface or converge anywhere up above on these lands?
A. We have no knowledge of any such rising towards the surface, and furthermore I believ your conclusions are erroneous as to the relation between the different stata in the different wells. The facts are that a study of the strata show no relation between each other whatever. They apparently form a series of old channels of the creek throughout that whole area, which are struck at variable depths and at various places, but they do not seem to show that the same strata was encountered at any other point.
Q. You mean the whole country has been revolted somehow geologically so that your old creek beds do not correspond to each other in that whole section?
A. No, that is not what I said. The whole area there is a portion of the cone which I have been previously referring to, and as a channel is formed, such as the present surface channel of Stony Creek, it gradually rises up for a number of feet and is abandonsd and the stream starts off in some other direction and leaves a new channel there, and of course silt will at times fill in the present channel, and we have a whole series of those at various depths towards Miller’s Buttes.
Q. As a matter of fact, the earlier channels, in previous geological ages, may have cut across this territory in a different direction towards Stony Creek, may they not?
A. It is entirely probable that they did, or entirely possible that they did.
Q. If you refer to channels at all, that would be one of the indications, possibly of the irregularity that you speak of?
A. Yes, that would be the cause of it. There has been no

p. 3087

fold at any point in the Valley that we have ever been able to determine or locate.
Q. Your investigations so far indicate, don’t they, Mr. Ryan, that you really have gravel beds that extend pretty well all over that delta?
A. Yes, and also probably connecting with each other at various points.
Q. It is a pretty solid lower strata, stretching over there, down a good many feet, at least a hundred or a hundred and fifty feet?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would be pretty difficult to state offhand that those were channels as distinguished from gravel strata, wouldn't it?
A. The logs would indicate that they were channels and not strata, in the general meaning of strata. Strata is, geoloaically speaking, such as are found in other places and might be found miles and miles along, like an old beach composed more or less of gravels, which might cover several square miles, but the logs in this particular case do not indicate such a general wide strata because none of the logs bear any relation to the others.
Q. Let us take the first gravel bed that you come to. How far below the surface is it generally in these wells?
A. It would average about 12 feet.
Q. What is the variance; between what limits; if I remember rightly, it was between 8 and 15?
A. Yes, between 8 and 15 feet.
Q. Now, how about the first clay stratum; where do you generally strike that?
A. Between 10 and 35 feet.
Q. How many 10 foot ones have you?
A. There are two at 10 feet.

p. 3088

Q. That is the first clay stratum?
A. Well No. 1 and Well No. 5 have clay at 10 feet.
Q. What is that?
A. Well No. 1 and Well No. 5 have clay at 10 feet.
Q. From the surface?
A. Yes
Q. With a gravel stratum above?
A. Yes
Q. How about the other wells? Will you give me the figures for those--the first clay stratum?
A. Well No. 2 has 27 feet to clay; in Well No. B it is 13 feet, in Well No. 4 it is 23 feet; in Well No. 6 it is 34 feet; in Well No 7, 28 feet.
Q. It would look as though those that hit around 30, 27, 28, 33 or 34 are the same stratum, wouldn't it, Mr. Ryan?
A. No, I don't agree with you on that. In considering the depth down, we must also consider the relative elevation of the surface itself. These wells are located in a space over two miles from one end to the other, so that in making that comparison we must consider the location of the surface elevation as well as the locations given in these logs.
Q. There is no reason for supposing that those strata would not, in some measure, follow the level of the land?
A. It might or it might not. Underground channels probably do follow the same general slope of the surface.
Q. Why do you say channels instead of strata; I do not quite see that? You have only four or five wells there and you say "channels" all the time.
A. A channel of gravel as I construe it, has a definite width; it is not a wide stratum with an indefinite width extending over several miles. Now if we assume, which I do, that these underground channels have approximately the same character as

p. 3089

the present surface channel of Stony Creek, which we can see, they would vary from a few hundred feet to possibly three-quarters of a mile, and it is my opinion that all of these underground channels do resemble the present surface channel as we see it of Stony Creek.
Q. Isn't that rather a violent assumption, from the data you have on these few wells?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because of the fact that there does seem to be some relation between the first gravel stratum and the surface, in that these particular wells haven’t any great variation, only between eight and twenty feet to the first gravel stratum. In studying this, you would have to take into consideration the gravel strata which follow. We take Well No. B as an example--we get down 23 feet and then we strike 126 feet of gravel or 113 feet of gravel, no other well in that whole neighborhood showing any such stratum or channel of gravel of such thickness.
Q. And that is all you found your conclusion on?
A. That and the other logs. That is the extreme case. The other gravel strata below there also indicate no relation between each other.
Q. You had how many wells there?
A. Seven.
MR. MORTON: That is all.
MR. FREEMAN: I think that is all.

I would like to have a ruling, Mr. Master, on a motion that the Exhibits offered in behalf of the James Mills Orchard Corporation be considered as offered on behalf of the Esperanza Land Corporation, in so far as they are applicable to the rules of evidence.
THE MASTER: It is so ordered.

- - - - - -

p. 3090

THE MASTER: We will continue this matter until September 11, 1923, at 10:00’ o'clock, in this place.

- - - - - -

p. 3091

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

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11TH, 1923 - 10:00 A.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For The United States

Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
Warren Gregory, Esq., of Messrs. Chickering & Gregory, San Francisco, Calif.
For their respective Defendants.

- - - - - - - - -
THE MASTER: If you gentlemen are ready, we will proceed.
MR. GREGORY: Let the record show that the firm of Chickering & Gregory is associated with Frank Freeman as Counsel for the Esperanza Land Corporation and the James Mills Orchards Corporation.

(Thereupon an informal discussion was had between Counsel and the Master concerning the situation of the cases of Defendants Esperanza Land Corporation and James Mills Orchards

p. 3092

Corporation, after which the the followng proceedings were had.)

MR. GREGORY: It appears now that there is no evidence to be introduced on behalf of the Defendents James Mills Orchards Corporation and Esperanza Land Corporation today. I have in the last two weeks had the opportunity of making a digest of the first fifteen volumes of testimony, but I have not received all of it and I wanted to review the testimony of Mr. Ryan given at the previous hearing and at this time I am under the necessity of requesting a oontinuance until I can have the opportunity of reading over that testimony. As far as I can find out, I question whether these two Defendents will have much, if any, further evidence to put in, and therefore, if the matter could be put over until such time as the Reporter can produce the testimony we can go over it and, if Mr. Freeman concurs, we may submit the case as it now stands. In that event, it will not be necessary to have a further hearing in our particular cases. So that, in order to shorten up the matter, I now ask thst this case be continued two weeks and then I will write or telegraph to all interested as to whether or not it will be necessary to have a further hearing so far as we are concerned.
THE MASTER: Very well, we will determine a date this aftenoon, and at this time, at Mr. Freeman's request, we will take an adjournment until 1:00 P.M.

- - - - - -

p. 3519

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2nd, 1923 - 1:30 P.M.
APPEARANCES:

Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles
For The United States

George R. Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif. Appearing for Defendants represented by Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.

- - - - - - - - -

p. 3534

UNITED STATES vs. JAMES MILLS ORCHARD, etc.

MR. [GEORGE] FREEMAN:- Now, in reference to the James Mills orchard corporation [sic] and the Esperanda [sic] Land Corporation, we wish to ask permission at this time to withdraw the Answer that has been filed, and have twenty days time in which to file an Amended Answer and a Disclaimer. Is there any objection to that?
MASTER:- I was just wondering whether I have any authority to allow pleadings to be withdrawn, or any thing of that sort. The issues in the matter were formed before the case was submitted for the taking of testimony at all. My only authority is to take testimony.
MR. FREEMAN:- Well, we can make the application at least, and then renew the application before the court, to withdraw that pleading. What is your power as to allowing an amended pleading?
MASTER:- I don't think I have any power at all.
MR. MORTON:- My suggestion, off hand, would be that, if they desire to file a Disclaimer, for the purpose of the record, such an offer could be made, and it could be carried forward, and disposed of at the proper time. There would be no protest against it, I take it, by anybody.
MR. FREEMAN:- Apparently that is about all that can be done.
MR. MORTON:- You say an Amended Answer and Disclaimer?
MR. FREEMAN:- Yes. We don't want to be bound in the future by the allegations of the present Answer. We would like to file an Amended Answer and a Disclaimer.
MR. MORTON:- Would that Answer raise any issues - -
MR. FREEMAN:- (Interrupting) It wouldn't raise any issues that would have to be tried.
MASTER:- I would think that making the offer at this time

p. 3535

clarifies the matter as to us as to taking further testimony, and the question of withdrawing pleadinge I think would be a matter on which the court itself would have to rule. So far as have I any authority, why I will grant you leave to do that, but I am very doubtful as to the effect of it.
MR. FREEMAN:- I am in doubt of that myself, but we will have the record clear, and you will know there is no more testimony to be taken as far as these two defendants are concered. All we want to do is to file an Answer disclaiming any rights against the Government as long as the present conditions exist, but we won’t want to be bound by that Disclaimer in the event the Government makes subsequent diversions. [which they did, Stonyford, and later Black Butte, but, too late, these defendants are in the decree.]
MASTER:- Yes.
MR. FREEMAN:- We also want the record to show that these defendants will not be bound any fnrther as to any costs of this record from now on.
MASTER:- Very well.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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