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

Selected filings in SWRCB's predecessor files under Application 2212 for Stony Gorge Reservoir:
Protest of James Mills Orchards Corporation, Esperanza Land, some other papers, before a SWRCB predecessor

[A transcription of the document on file in Application 2212 with SWRCB

Important because they were the predominant user of downstream underflow, and this followed up on their disclaimer in Angle which was made apparently because Reclamation promised them there would be no more diversions. Surprise!

Also important because as of 01/13/1930 half of the award under this application exceeded the allowable to the U.S. Government under the Angle Decree.

In straight text without elaborate 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. ]

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

[LETTER, RECLAMATION TO SWRCB PREDECESSOR 08/24/1024]

Stamp:
RECEIVED
AUG 12 1924
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE
Orland, California
August 11, 1924

Division of Water Rights,
California Department of Public Works,
Sacramento, Calif.

Re Applications No. 2212-3944

Gentlemen:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated August 8, 1924 relative to publication of notice of above numbered applications.

Since completion of these applications, and more particularly as the result of the abnormally low runoff from Stony Creek last winter with the seriously deficient water supply available for the present Orland project during the current irrigation season, studies are now being made by the office of the Chief Engineer of the Reclamation Bureau regarding an additional water supply for the present area comprising the project. It is probable that a portion of the storage included in above numbered applications will be applied to the present project and possibly no additional land included.

It will be necessary to amend our application to conform to the plans of an additional supply for the Orland project which are now under consideration and which will probably be available within ninety days.

It is requested that authority be granted for an extension of ninety days within which to submit plans for supplementing the present water supply of the Orland project and that publication of notice of application be withheld until completion of the plans and their submission to you in the form of an amended application.

Yours truly

/s/ R.C.E. Weber

R.C.E. Weber
Superintendent

C/c to D.C., Berkeley
" to Commissioner
" to Chief Engineer

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[LETTER SWRCB PREDECESSOR TO RECLAMATION 09/15/1924]

September 15, 1924.

Re Applications Nos. 334 - 2212 - 3944


U.S. Reclamation Service,
Or1and,
California.

Attention Mr. R.C.E. Weber


Gentlemen:

Acknowledgment is made of receipt of a letter from you dated September 8, 1924, relative to your above-numbered applications to appropriate water from Stony Creek and tributaries.

We note that newspaper publicity is being withheld until your plans are in final and definite form. With regard to the tentative change in location of the reservoir, we are enclosing a copy of the Rules and Regulations and refer you especially to the information on page 20 thereof relative to change in point of diversion. Any necessary advertising of such a change may be executed in connection with the hitherto incomplete advertisement of the application.

In response to your request for information as to other applications to appropriate in the Stony Creek watershed, please be advised that there is only one application now in force. Under application No. 334, Permit 157, License 153 has been issued in favor of J.K. Masterson, showing that he has consumated an appropriation of 0.20 cubic foot per second from the North Fork of Stoney Creek to be used for irrigation between May 1st and September 30. This office has no record of rights initiated prior to Dec. 19, 1924.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD HYATT, JR.
ACTING CHIEF OF DIVISION


BY E.N. BRYAN
Office Engineer

JCF:ML

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[LETTER SWRCB PREDECESSOR TO BROWNELLS' LAWYER "EXPLAINING", 07/09/1925]

July
Ninth
Nineteen
Twenty-five

Re Application Number 2212


Mr. George R. Freeman,
Attorney at Law,
Willows, Califorinia.

Dear Sir:

This is to acknowledge receipt of a letter from you dated June 29, 1925 with which was enclosed a protest of Brownell Brothers against the above nunbered application by the United States Reclamation Service to appropriate from Stony Creek in Glenn County.

While this protest is stated to be "against the granting of the change of point of diversion", we are in some doubt as to whether or not this statement is inadvertent and we take the liberty of pointing out the following pertinent facts in this connection:

Both the point of diversion as first specified and that which is now proposed is above the Brownell property. As we understand it at the lower point there are some 610 square miles tributary to the source and at the upper and proposed new point of diversion there are only 301 square miles. A movement of the point of diversion upstream therefore involves the loss of 309 square miles, or more than fifty per cent of the drainage area thereby decreasing the possibility of interference with the rights claimed by protestant.

It is brought to your attention also that this is an application to store water during the period November 1st to May 1st, which is the usual period of flood runoff and no diversion is contemplated during the period May first to November first. Furthermore the application is to appropriate unappropriated waters subject to existing rights, and if appoved the approval will be expressly subject to all vested rights.

We are enclosing for your convenience a copy of the Rules and Regulations of this office and would direct to your particular attention Amended Regulations 11 and 12, Regulation 13 and the general information on pages 25 and 26 under the heading "Riparian Rights".

Mr. George S. Freeman, [page] #2.

Mr. Weber with Mr. Coffee, Attorney for his office, just discussed this matter with the writer and it was suggested to him that he call upon you and talk this matter over. If it is possible for you to come to some arrangement whereby this protest can be withdrawn action upon Application Number 2212 may proceed without a hearing. If the protest is not withdrawn we shall set the matter for an early hearing.

We shall thank you for your prompt advices in this connection.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD HYATT, JR.,
CHIEF OF DIVISION


By EVERETT N. BRYAN
Office Engineer

ENB:HA

CC to

Mr. R.C.E. Weber,
Project Engineer,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Orland, California.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ANSWER OF RECLAMATION TO BROWNELL PROTEST, 07/09/1925]

Stamp:
RECEIVED
JUL 9 1925
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS


IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR PERMISSION TO CHANGE POINT OF
DIVERSION UNDER APPLICATION #2212


AMENDED APPLICATION #2212

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting in this behalf by R.C.E. Weber, Superintendent of the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, thereunto duly authorized, answering the protest of L.E. Brownell, I.L. Brownell and R.H. Brownell, against the granting of permission to change the point of diversion under Application #2212, respectfully shows:

I


Admits that protestants are the owners of some considerable acreage of land situate in Townships 21 and 22 North, Ranges 5 and 6 West, M.D.B. & M., California, which lands are contiguous to Stony Creek, but applicant is not advised as to the extent of such acreage, and denies that the diversion of the waters of said Stony Creek at the point described, in the application now pending herein wi1l deprive protestants of any waters to which they may be lawfully entitled, or in any manner interfere therewith.

II


Applicant admits that protestants rights in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek, if any they have, are predicated upon the fact that they are the owners of land which are riparian to said Stony Creek.

- 1 -

III


Applicant admits that protestants, or their predecessors in interest, have heretofore irrigated during the early part of some irrigation seasons a part or portion of the lands described in paragraph one of the protest on file herein, but applicant alleges that none of the lands in said paragraph described have been irrigated, or water used thereon, for more than twenty (20) years laat past.

IV


Applicant admits that the lands irrigated from said Stony Creek are situate in Section 23, Township 22 North, Range 5 West, M.D.B. & M., but denies that such lands so irrigated consist of over one hundred acres, or in any amount in excess of forty five acres. Applicant further denies that an area of approximately 4,500 acres of the lands described in paragraph 1 of the protest on file herein, or any part thereof in excess of perhaps some one hundred acres are physically susceptible or possible of practical irrigation from the natural flow of Stony Creek, or its tributaries, if water were actually available for use thereon, and in this connection avers that none of such lands have been irrigated within more than twenty years last past.

V


That such rights, if any, as protestants have in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries for the lands described in paragraph 1 of the protest on file herein are issues in the case of The United States of America vs. Angle, and others, now pending in the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and designated therein as In Equity-No. 30; that the trial of said suit has been completed, but decision has not as yet been rendered by the Court, and that the rights of defendants in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries will be determined thereby; that whatever rights are decreed to protestants in said suit will not in any manner be affected by the change in point of diversion as described in Amended Application #2212.

- 2 -


Attention is also directed to the fact that the application of the United States of America is for permission to store flood waters, only, during the period October 1st to May 1st of each season and does not affect the low water flow of the stream system; that it is proposed to store flood waters by means of a dam in the stream bed of Stony Creek and that it is not proposed to store any of the natural flow of Stony Creek or to in any wise interfere with such natural flow during the irrigation season.

Applicant further shows that the change in point of diversion as described in Application #2212 to the point of diversion as described in Amended Application #2212 will not interfere with any rights protestants may have in and to the use of the waters of Stony Creek for the reason that the point of diversion described in Application #2212 is situate at the extreme westerly and upper boundary of protestants’ property whereas the point of diversion described in the Amended Application #2212 is located some ten miles further upstream, with an intervening drainage area of approximately three hundred square miles, the runoff of which is not affected by applicant's proposed storage reservoir, and which runoff, during the irrigation season, is sufficient to supply such rights, if any, as protestants may have in and to the waters of said stream system for domestic and stock purposes.

Applicant further shows that the mean seasonal runoff of Stony Creek at the proposed point of storage under Amended Applicant [sic] #2212 is approximately two hundred seventy thousand acre feet, of which applicant proposes to impound but fifty thousand two hundred acre feet (see paragraph 2-b of amended application); that such part of said runoff not impounded by applicant, augmented by the runoff of the intervening drainage area (amounting to approximately one hundred seventy thousand acre feet per season) flows down and past the lands of protestants and is not utilized, all thereof being wasted

- 3 -

VI


That a true copy hereof has this day been mailed, postage prepaid, to each of the protestants at Orland, California, and to their attorney, Mr. George R. Freeman, at Willows, California.

Dated at Orland, California, this ninth day of July, 1925.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


By /s/ R.C.E. Weber
_____________________________
Superintendent
Bureau of Reclamation.

- 4 -


[summarize: there is plenty of water for everyone, the stream is not fully appropriated, don't mention severence of underflow, etc..]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[PROTEST OF JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS 09/30/1925]

Stamp:
RECEIVED
SEP 30 1925
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS


BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA


In the Matter of the Application of

UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE

To appropriate waters of Stony Creek.

Application 2212

PROTEST OF JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION

Now comes James Mills Orchards Corporation, a corporation, and protesting the above-entitled application of the United States Reclamation Service, respectfully shows:

I.


That protestant James Mills Orchards Corporation is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation created, organzed and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

II.


That said protestant is now, and for many years last past has been, the owner and in posssession of the following lots, pieces and parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Glenn, State of California, to-wit:
The South half of Lots 1094 to 1097 inclusive;
The Southwest quarter of Lot 1112;
Lots 1113 to 1117 inclusive;
The North half and the Southeast quarter of Lot 1129;
Lots 1130 to 1139 inclusive;
Lots 1141 to 1150 inclusive;
Lots 1166 to 1178 inclusive;
All said lots being part of Division No. 2 of the Hamilton Unit of the Sacramento Valley Irrigation Project according to the Map of same filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Glenn, State of California.
III.


That said Stony Creek, referred to in said application, is a natural water course rising in the mountains west of the lands of protestant and flowing in a general westerly [sic] direction over,

1.


through, under and along the lands of protestant hereinabove described and finally emptying into the Sacramento River. That all of the above described lands of protestant are riparian to said Stony Creek.

IV.


That Stony Creek during past ages has built up a well defined gravel cone of great depth, consisting of pervious and coarse gravel that absorbs large quantities of water during the time when a surface flow exists in said stream and tributaries thereof, and the water so absorbed flows in the underground channels of Stony Creek and also flows and percolates into the numerous underground gravel stratas and channels hereinafter referred to. That under the surface of the lands of protestant are numerous gravel stratas and channels interconnected and connected at numerous points with the surface and underground channels of Stony Creek, and part and parcel of said cone. That the amount of water absorbed by said cone percolation and flow in said underground channels is variable and depends upon the surface of the water of said Stony Creek, the surface of gravel exposed to such water, the depth of water over such gravels and the duration of the flow. That unless said cone is annually replenished, there is nothing to sustain the supply of water now existing and passing along, over and under the lands of protestant, and that if the flow of Stony Creek is interfered with, said cone and underground channels will become depleted and dry.

V.


That for many years protestant has been engaged in the improvement and development of its lands by planting thereon a large number of trees of various kinds, both deciduous and citrus, as well as other crops, requiring water to be applied artificially. That to supply such needed water defendant has expended large amounts of money in the boring and sinking of numerous wells, and

2.


the installation therein of suitable pumps and equipment with which to operate said pumps for the irrigation of said lands from the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and from waters percolating in said lands, and also in the construction of many miles of concrete pipe for the distribution of said water to said lands, and in the construction of many miles of power lines to enable power to be delivered to said pumps for said irrigation. That said land is now being so irrigated, and has at all times since the year 1912 been so irrigated. That the result of the use of said water for said irrigation has been to greatly increase the yield of crops of all kinds on said lands, and irrigation will in the future continue to increase the yield from said lands. That without irrigation said lands are practically valueless.

VI.


That the various wells on protestant’s lands are connected with and are supplied through the surface and underground channels above referred to, including said bed of Stony Creek, and are entirely dependent thereon. That protestant is the owner of riparian and appropriative rights in and to the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and the waters thereof, and is entitled to have such flow continue on, over, across and along the above described lands without diminution by applicant.

VII.


That protestant, by virtue of the ownership of the above described lands and the underground water-bearing stratum supplied from flood and other waters of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, has a primary right to the full surface and underground flow of said stream.

VIII.


That said Division of Water Rights is an administrative tribunal before which this protestant is not required to appear

3.


in order to preserve its rights in and to the flow of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, or in or to any of the percolating waters underlying the lands of protestant and supplied from Stony Creek as hereinabove set forth, and this protest is filed for the purpose of serving notice upon the United States Reclamation Service that the said protestant in no way acquiesces in the diversion of any water from Stony Creek or tributaries thereof under the aforesaid application of said Reclamation Service now pending before the Division of Water Rights. That this protest is filed for the further purpose of preventing said applicant from now or at any time in the future claiming that this protestant acquiesces or has acquiesced in the use of additional water by said applicant over and above the quantity that is now under other claims of applicant being put to beneficial use, and particularly to prevent the interposition in the future by applicant of the claim that protestant has suffered applicant to proceed at great or any expense to divert additional water for public use, or the interposition by applicant of any equitable or other estoppel. That said applicant is without right to take any of the waters of Stony Creek or the tributaries thereof, or in any way interfere with said percolating waters and said underground and surface flow fed by Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, to the injury of protestant. That should the Division of Water Rights see fit to grant to said applicant a permit to appropriate any water or waters of Stony Creek or any tributary thereof pursuant to said application but subject to vested rights, protestant now notifies applicant that any diversion under such permit that in any manner invades or interferes with protestant’s rights shall be deemed to warrant a claim for injunctive relief, and such other relief as protestant may then deem necessary to protect its rights in such waters.

JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION

By /s/ James Mills
___________________________________
President

4.


A copy of the within protest and notice has this day been mailed to applicant.

DATED: September 28th 1925.

/s/ Chickering & Gregory
_________________________________
Attorneys for Protestant.

5.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[PROTEST OF ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION 09/30/1925]

RECEIVED
SEP 30 1925
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS


BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA


In the Matter of the Application of

UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE

To appropriate waters of Stony Creek.

Application 2212

PROTEST OF ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION

Now comes Esperanza Land Corporation, a corporation,and protesting the above-entitled application of the United States Reclamation Service, respectfully shows:

I.


That protestant Esperanza Land Corporation is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation created, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

II.


That said protestant is now, and for many years last past has been, the owner and in possession of the following lots, pieces and parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Glenn, State of California, to-wit:
Lots 1001 to 1011 inclusive;
Lots 1023 to 1046 inclusive;
Lots 1052 to 1069 inclusive;
Lots 1071 to 1093 inclusive;
N 1/2 of Lots 1094 to 1097 inclusive;
Lots 1098 to 1104 inclusive;
Lots 1106 to 1111 inclusive;
N 1/2 and SE 1/4 of Lot 1112;
Lots 1186 to 1202 inclusive;
Lots 1220 to 1236 inclusive;
Lots 1254 to 1269 inclusive;
Lots 1281 to 1296 inclusive;
Lots 1302 to 1312 inclusive;
Lots 1323 to 1333 inclusive;
Lots 1342 to 1363 inclusive;
Lots 1372 to 1382 inclusive;
Lots 1410 to 1420 inclusive;
Lots 1429 to 1439 inclusive;
Lots 1472 to 1482 inclusive;
Said lots are laid down and designated on Sacramento Valley Project map of Division 2 of the Hamilton Unit, Glenn County, California, recorded June 16, 1923, in Book 2 of Maps and Surveys, at page 258, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Glenn and, containing 9,382.64 Acres.
1.

III.


That said Stony Creek, referred to in said application, is a natural water course rising in the mountains west of the lands of protestant and flowing in a general westerly [sic] direction over, through, under and along the lands of protestant hereinabove described and finally emptying into the Sacramento River. That all of the above described lands of protestant are riparian to said Stony Creek.

IV.


That Stony Creek during past ages has built up a well defined gravel cone of great depth, consisting of pervious and coarse gravel that absorbs large quantities of water during the time when a surface flow exists in said stream and tributaries thereof, and the water so absorbed flows in the underground channels of Stony Creek and also flows and percolates into the numerous underground gravel stratas and channels hereinafter referred to. That under the surface of the lands of protestant are numerous gravel stratas and channels interconnected and connected at numerous points with the surface and underground channels of Stony Creek, and part and parcel of said cone. That the amount of water absorbed by said cone percolation and flow in said underground channels is variable and depends upon the surface of the water of said Stony Creek, the surface of gravel exposed to such water, the depth of water over such gravels and the duration of the flow. That unless said cone is annually replenished, there is nothing to sustain the supply of water now existing and passing along, over and under the lands of protestant, and that if the flow of Stony Creek is interfered with, said cone and underground channels will become depleted and dry.

V.


That for many years protestant has been engaged in the improvement and development of its lands by planting thereon a

2.


large number of trees of various kinds, both deciduous and citrus, as well as other crops, requiring water to be applied artificially. That to supply such needed water defendant has expended large amounts of money in the boring and sinking of numerous wells, and the installation therein of suitable pumps and equipment with which to operate said pumps for the irrigation of said lands from the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and from waters percolating in said lands, and also in the construction of many miles of concrete pipe for the distribution of said water to said lands, and in the construction of many miles of power lines to enable power to be delivered to said pumps for said irrigation. That said land is now being so irrigated, and has at all times since the year 1912 been so irrigated. That the resu1t of the use of said water for said irrigation has been to greatly increase the yield of crops of all kinds on said lands, and irrigation will in the future continue to increase the yield from said lands. That without irrigation said lands are practically valueless.

VI.


That the various wells on protestant’s lands are connected with and are supplied through the surface and underground channels above referred to, including said bed of Stony Creek, and are entirely dependent thereon. That protestant is the owner of riparian and appropriative rights in and to the surface and underground flow of said Stony Creek and the waters thereof, and is entitled to have such flow continue on, over, across and along the above described lands without diminution by applicant.

VII.


That protestant, by virtue of the ownership of the above described lands and the underground water-bearing stratum supplied from flood and other waters of Stony Creek and tributaries therof, has a primary right to the full surface and underground flow of said stream.

3.

VIII.


That said Division of Water Rights is an administrative tribunal before which this protestant is not required to appear in order to preserve its rights in and to the flow of Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, or in or to any of the percolating waters underlying the lands of protestant and supplied from Stony Creek as hereinabove set forth, and this protest is filed for the purpose of serving notice upon the United States Reclamation Service that the said protestant in no way acquiesces in the diversion of any water from Stony Creek or tributaries thereof under the aforesaid application of said Reclamation Service now pending before the Division of Water Rights. That this protest is filed for the further purpose of preventing said applicant from now or at any time in the future claiming that this protestant acquiesces or has acquiesced in the use of additional water by said applicant over and above the quantity that is now under other claims of applicant being put to beneficial use, and particularly to prevent the interposition in the future by applicant of the claim that protestant has suffered applicant to proceed at great or any expense to divert additional water for public use, or the interposition by applicant of any equitable or other estoppel. That said applicant is without right to take any of the waters of Stony Creek or the tributaries thereof, or in any way interfere with said percolating waters and said underground and surface flow fed by Stony Creek and tributaries thereof, to the injury of protestant. That should the Division of Water Rights see fit to grant to said applicant a permit to appropriate any water or waters of Stony Creek or any tributary thereof pursuant to said application but subject to vested rights, protestant now notifies applicant that any diversion under such permit that in any manner invades or interferes with protestant's rights shall be deemed to warrant a claim for injunctive relief

4.


and such other relief as protestant may then deem necessary to protect its rights in such waters.


ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION
By /s/ James Mills
___________________________________
Vice President


A copy of the within protest and notice has this day been mailed to applicant.
DATED September 28th, 1925.


/s/ Chickering & Gregory
_________________________________
Attorneys for Protestant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[DECISION D-83 IN APPLICATION 2212 GIVING RECLAMATION EVERYTHING IT WANTED]


BEFORE THE DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

o0o

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NUMBER 2212 BY THE UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO APPROPRIATE WATER FROM
STONY CREEK IN GLENN, COLUSA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES FOR
AGRICULTURAL USE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ORLAND
PROJECT
o0o

DECISION NO. 2212. D 83
Decided: November 7, 1925.


APPEARANCES AT HEARING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1925: 


    
For Applicant	       		- Richard J. Coffey, Atty., and
	                 	  R.C.E. Weber, Supt.

For Protestant, Glenn
    Colusa Irrigation Dis-
    trict	                - Mr. H. J. Hankins of Hankins
      	                  	  & Hankina, Attorneys.

For Protestaut, L.E., I.L.
    and. R. H. Brownell	        - Mr. Geo. H. Freeman, Attorney.

For Protestant Esperanza
    Land. Corporation and
    James Mills Orchard Co.     - James Mills.

    Examiner:			  E. N. Bryan, Deputy Chief of the
				  Division of Water Rights.
o0o

OPINION


This is an application for a permit to store 50,200 acre feet of the waters of Stony Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River between November 1st and May 1st of each season for beneficial use for irrigation between March 1st and November 1st. As will hereinafter appear the flow of

Rubber stamp: NOV 14 1925
[page break]


the source is regulated by East Park Reservoir and the applicant claims an established right to use the first 265 second feet of the normal flow of the source by virtue of purchase. Protests were filed against the application by L.E., I.L. and R.H. Brownell, the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, the Esperanza Land Corporation and by the James Mills Orchards Co.

The application was filed February 17, 1921, completed in accordance with the Water Commission Act and the requirements of tbe Rules and Regu1ations of the Division of Water Rights and being protested was set for public hearing in the Supervisors Room of the Court House at Willows at 11:00 o’clock A. M. on Wednesdey, October 21, 1925. Of this hearing applicant and protestants were duly notified, each being represented thereat.

The protest of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District shows that by contractual relation between applicant and protestant’s predecessor in interest applicant has purchased protestant’s claimed right to the first 265 second feet flowing in the source together with a certain canal system, said 265 second feet to be directly diverted or stored as may best suit applicant’s needs. The same contract refers to a right claimed by the district, also through purchase, to appropriate any water over and above the first 265 second feet, such water being diverted by a canal of 1400 second feet capacity which canal also carries a large amount of water from the Sacramento River. Protestant admits that, under ordinary conditions, only a very small proportion of its water comes from Stony Creek and also that their diversions from this source constitute a very small proportion of the

-2-


annual yield thereof. This indicates that a considerable flow is subject to appropriation and at the hearing applicant agreed to recognize and observe the rights claimed by protestant under the above mentioned contract.

Brownell Brothers protest is based on riparian claim to the right to use water below the point of diversion. At the hearing it was stated by applicant’s superintendent, without denial from protestant, that no water had been used for irrigation on these lands for at least 15 years. Protestant’s attorney at the hearing evidenced their desire as being not to interfere with the proposed appropriation subject to vested rights but to place on record their claims to right to use water from the source as riparians.

The protests of the Esperanza Land Corporation and of the James Mills Orchards Co. set forth their claims to rights to use water from under ground sources supplied by Stony Creek and state that any infringement of such rights shall be deemed a warrant for injunctive relief. That these protestants have no objection to issuance of a permit on the application subject to vested rights was made clear at the hearing by Mr. Mills, an official of both protestant companies.

It was brought out at the hearing that in normal years the entire available flow at Gelnn [sic] Colusa Irrigation District’s point of diversion on Stony Creek is taken into their canal after about the 1st of April but in years of high yield it is probable that even after that date there will be water flowing in the stream which is not appropriated by the Irrigation District. The District’s rights, in this event, appear to be adequately protected under the above mentioned contract and the appropriation will be al-

-3-


lowed for the full period of diversion specified.

It was brought out at the hearing that in addition to the above mentioned 265 second feet applicant is now storing 51,000 acre feet at East Park Reservoir. The regimen of the stream is such, however, that in an extended period of light runoff applicants existing facilities are insufficient to answer their requirements. Stony Gorge Reservoir is contemplated for correction of this condition. Studies made by applicant show the project to be advisable from their point of view and Congress has made a preliminary appropriation of $50,000 for execution of the project.

ORDER


Application No. 2212 for a permit to appropriate water having been filed with the Division of Water Rights as above stated, protests having been filed, a public hearing having been held, and the Division of Water Rights now being fully informed in the premises:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Application No. 2212 be approved and that a permit be granted to the applicant subject to such of the usual terms and conditions as may be appropriate.

Dated at Sacramento this 17th day of November, 1925.

/s/ Edward Hyatt, Jr.,
CHIEF OF DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JCF:GG

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

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