THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2010, Mike Barkley

I. ----- The North Fork Stony Creek Story [revise this]
II. ---- Lying in wait: HOMESTEADERS vs. THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; How the USA went after water rights of the small farmers whom it had enticed to settle western lands
III. --- MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISTAKES in the Orland Project -- U.S. Reclamation Service attempts for a cover up lead to the Angle Decree.
IV. --- THE ANGLE DECREE: [Section IV.H - Fraud on the Court]
V. ---- Some of the aftermath of the Decree
VI. --- RELATED CASES
VII. -- DIVERSION LIMITS IN THE DECREE and EXCESS DIVERSIONS BY PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIII. - WHERE HAVE ALL THE FISH GONE?
IX. --- Uh, what do I do if there is an EARTHQUAKE?
X. ---- More aftermath of the Decree
XI. --- Links
XII. -- ALTERNATIVES [revise this]
XIII.-- Sources not exactly elsewhere on the web
XIV. - Forces that led to the decline of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed (for which the Angle Decree was the final nail)
XV. -- Lying, Cheating & Stealing - Misplaced faith in our government?

---

---

I. - Worse Than Owens River: The North Fork Stony Creek Story [revise this]

II. - HOMESTEADERS vs. THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
Through its use of homestead acts, the U.S. encouraged settlement in and cultivation of irrigable and other lands throughout the west. Pioneers endured great hardships and isolation to settle these lands, and generally made a go of it, and after building ranches and farms and communities, along came the the United States and through its "Reclamation Service" arm, authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902, shouldered its way into mature, irrigated watersheds and took what it wanted, in each case suing some 600 or so irrigators in such a fashion that none could afford to mount a comprehensive defense, and eventually lost most rights that they had. Remember that these were the days before photocopiers, computers, and, in the case of the upper Stony Creek watershed before 1939, electricity, or west of Orland before the late 1950s, paved roads; the Angle archives amount to 30,000-40,000 pages and to mount a watershed-wide defense, all that had to be cataloged, indexed, reproduced, and copies of relevant proceedings served on everyone which usually meant typesetting; the USA could afford full time attorneys for 12 years and typists and typesetters and so on, but no one else could, and anyone fighting the seizures in any way had to post fees for the Special Master and the Court Reporter in advance. There are at least 3 such instances mentioned in the Angle record:

• Truckee River (Orr Ditch cases), Nevada
• Umatilla River (or Yumatilla River), Oregon
• Stony Creek, California
  
  
• What others? Gila River, Arizona? Pecos River, New Mexico? Boise River, Idaho? Silvies River, Oregon? A list of Reclamation's water rights litigation does not exactly appear in any well-known, published index anywhere, but it has become clear that this litigation juggernaut was part of the plan from early on and in each case they carefully lay in wait to spring it after lulling the populace into complacency. . . . Here is a draft list of Reclamation's Predatory Adjudications. - not all of these fit that definition but sifting them is difficult and in progress.
  
  

But California was different because California's Supreme Court regarded riparian rights as property rights, rights that could be taken only through proper exercise of eminent domain and not by mere seizure. Every time efforts were made to eliminate riparian rights, the California Supreme Court stood up for the owners of those rights. How to get around that? The answer: Fraud on the Court. It wasn't enough that USA had an inequitable balance of parties, in California the USA had to deceive the judge to make it work, see Fraud on the Court section IV.H. below.

III. - MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISTAKES in the Orland Project -- U.S. Reclamation Service attempts for a cover up lead to the Angle Decree.

• No problem of "misunderstanding or litigation" with the upstream Riparians , and other broken promises.
• Reclamation used the wrong rainfall figures for East Park
• Reclamation expanded the service area in wet years without knowing how little surface stream flow was available in dry years
• Reclamation & the U.S. Department of Justice use Fraud on the Court to get around California law, see section IV.H. below

IV. - THE ANGLE DECREE:

A. - Indexing [the accumulated record was at one time 10 files boxes in the National Archives in Burlingame, CA plus or supplemented by some of 9 feet of shelving at the U.S. District Court in Sacramento; now it's smaller but I don't know what has disappeared]:
• Crude, Incomplete, old typewritten list of filings, many typos (transcribed from the original?) 05/28/1918 to 07/14/1922, 04/23/1928 - 05/03/1954, ?
• Indexes of 5,000 pages or more of transcripts, volume by volume
• Docket book from the Court, 1980 - 1990
• Docket sheet from the Court since 1990
• I built this comprehensive INDEX in 2009-10 incorporating all of the above plus all the filings and other papers in the Angle archives, estimated 40,000 - 50,000 pages.

B. - COMPLAINT AND AMENDMENTS:
• Initial Complaint, 05/28/1918- against those taking Project water without the right
• 04/03/1919, Amended Complaint - expanded to cover all lands in the watershed regardless of lack of culpability of the owners
• [ 100319 or 100419 Amended Complaint - this may be a yank & put error in building the index ]
• 01/16/1923 - Adds paragraphs Va - Vk - ( Stipulation 10/12/1922 ) Hall & Scearce, Stony Creek Irrigation Company, Lemon Home, rights and systems
• 08/25/1924 - Adds paragraphs Vl - Vr (Grindstone Indian Reservation)

C. - Some of the other orders & filings before the Decree:
• Preliminary Injuction and Appointment of Water Commissioner, 06/10/1918 - As transcripts show, East Park cut off the substantial underflow of Little Stony fed by streams above Indian Valley that never went dry, and this Injunction made no provision to provide prior diverters with those flows; numerous affidavits were presented in opposition on 06/11/1918 and were apparently ignored by the court; all of this is yet another example of the unfairness imposed by a Court with no regard for the preexisting settlement and development of the watershed; any laches argument is specious in that at no time was it ever possible to have the court consider the opposing sides because the court simply wasn't interested. Ever. The affidavits:
  • Affidavit of M.G. Bedford
  • Affidavit of W.W. Gatliff
  • Affidavit of Alvin Gollnick
  • Affidavit of J.C. Johannsen
  • Affidavit of John Johannsen, Jr.
  • Affidavit of J.E. Knight
  • Affidavit of J.F. Mallon
  • Affidavit of G.W. Markham
  • Affidavit of Allen T. Moore
  • Affidavit of Wm. Niesen
  • Affidavit of W. J. Salisbury
  • Affidavit of E.E. Smith
  • Affidavit of J.H. Soeth
  • Affidavit of Fred Strong ( Fred Strawn ) East Park severed year-round flow & underflow on Little Stony
  • Affidavit of A.L. Triplett - ties in with testimony throughout the transcripts regarding year-round flows in the head waters of Little Stony and tributaries and how the dam SEVERED THE UNDERFLOW that flowed throughout the time the dam was being constructed, all casting doubt on the 7% savings of water alleged by the Water Commissioner at p. 3253 of the transcript since there is no indication he offset the underflow of Little Stony to which the upstream irrigators were entitled before coming to his 7% "savings" figure.
  • Affidavit of A.L. Triplett (for Wakefield & Ralston)
  • Affidavit of F.W. Troxel
  • Affidavit of I.E. True
• 10/04/1919, new parties
• 10/04/1919, Stipulation on Pleadings, etc.
• Orders pro confesso,
  • 05/20/1922
  • 06/02/1922
  • 06/24/1922
  • 09/15/1922
• Setting hearings in Willows under Geo. E. McCutchen (at the age of 27), as master pro hac vice, 06/24/1922.
• Settlement with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 06/24/1922 [ actual terms of any settlement, if any, are MISSING from the record ]
• General Stipulation, 01/16/1923
• Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Stipulation (settlement), 04/02/1926

D. - RECLAMATION'S WAR ON THE BROWNELLS, the primary target of their anti-riparian attacks:
• Answer of the Brownells
• Replication to Answer of the Brownells; exactly the kind of argument that Herminghaus and Fall River later pronounced invalid.
• See Morton's repeated hammering in the transcripts on adding 3,000 more upstream irrigated acres; splitting Brownells off from their neighbors and isolating them (but of course, not mentioning that the Project irrigated 5 times that much)
• See also the PROTEST of the BROWNELLS in the Fraud on the Court section below

E. - DOWNSTREAM RIPARIANS/UNDERFLOW USERS:
• Why important: This is yet another example of the way the court treats plaintiff and the downstream defendants differently than the upstream riparians: plaintiff and downstream defendants are allowed as much water as they want, but upstream users are consistently prosecuted and persecuted for their usages, with the result that upstream usage has been systematically reduced well below the levels of the Decree. As to Underflow, despite considerable testimony in the record (see transcripts cited just below), USA excluded underflow from the Decree entirely except when it recited the GCID stip wherein it mentioned, as against GCID and only against GCID, USA maintained the right to divert underflow at the two Project diversion points - and apparently nowhere else and against no other party; In drafting the Decree, USA ignored all the rest of the underflow discussion in the record. Underflow cannot be logically considered a part of the Decree since it was so scrupulously omitted. However, after the SWRCB issued an opinion in the Westcamp condemnation case that Colusa County was trying to pump from Stonyford Underflow, the controversy heated up, leading to a settlement that severely restricted Colusa County's use of underflow to which it had every right, see Doc #94, 01/10/1986; following that, anyone upstream no longer knows what their riparian right is to underflow (riparian right to surface flow was seized without compensation by the Decree, in violation of California law--see sections on Fraud on the Court below); meanwhile, substantial usage of downstream underflow continues.
• Reclamation's 05/31/1922, 06/10/1922, 06/20/1922 petition to dismiss everyone downstream of the Project
• GCID's 06/20/1922 objection to dismissing everyone downstream
• Judge Van Fleet's 06/24/1922 Order rejecting dismissal of everyone downstream, and other issues
• Frank Freeman's underflow clients, 09/25/1922;
  • Typical downstream underflow answer, James Mills Orchards, 09/25/1922
  • Typical downstream underflow replication, to Answer of James Mills Orchards, 05/16/1923
  • All portions of the transcripts relating to James Mills Orchards Company and related companies - 90 pages of clear and convincing credible expert testimony, without rebuttal, showing that downstream riparians were pumping from Stony Creek underflow.
  • Warren Gregory of Chickering and Gregory, San Francisco, Transcript p. 3091, (see Mills transcripts) shows up at the hearings to aid Frank Freeman's underflow defendants, everything gets quiet
  • Downstream underflow Amended Answer, James Mills Orchards and Esperanza Land Corporation, 02/25/1924; did they get suckered? or did they get some sort of side settlement that the decree would never be enforced against them? Suggestion they were suckered:
  • Protest of James Mills Orchards and Esperanza against Stony Gorge application (plus Decision D-83 on Application 2212, and some correspondence), after they waived everything in the Angle case? Of course, as of 01/13/1930 half of the storage right granted the U.S.A. was invalidated by the Decree.
  • Downstream diverters, having disclaimed, lose rights to use flows and underflows, Disclaimers recited Transcript pp. 4715 - 4723, Decree never enforced by Water Master against downstream underflow diverters
• Water Master, Doc. #75, erroneously declares that Decree only applies to properties upstream from the Project, GCID being the most obvious disproof of his assertion, but further disproof in the wholesale destruction of riparian and underflow rights of all others downstream in the Transcripts, Findings and Decree - was there a HIDDEN SETTLEMENT followed by deliberate selective enforcement of the Decree
• Colusa County tries to get access to 40 acre-feet, deemed underflow by SWRCB, 2-decade long feud
• No one notices the Findings and Decree deliberately avoid underflow discussions except at the exact point of Project Diversion and that except for the underflow at that precise location, the Decree excludes underflow; 50 years later, SWRCB changes that with the Colusa Referee's report, which now means some underflow is included, most is not, and Judge Karlton is indifferent to the damage this caused.
• Compare for instance, the Hallett Creek Decree, which at p. 2, para. 3 specifically covers underflow echoing Section 1200 of the California Water Code

F. - Other selected filings:
• Typical answer of a riparian livestock rancher, but Reclamation replication calls his stock watering use a waste of water.
• GCID answer, 11/22/1921; replication 10/12/1922
• Selected transcript pages

G. - Filings/papers not yet located:
• STATE OF CALIFORNIA Settlement, 06/24/1922
• Anything related to discovery by defendants

H. - The FRAUD ON THE COURT coalesces - see comprehensive INDEX for full sequence of events, especially 1925 -1930:
• Why important: Once Judge Woolley of the Fresno Superior Court issued his Opinion in the Herminghaus case, Reclamation & the DOJ knew they had a problem. Their efforts to fight it in the California Supreme Court came to naught, and in Supreme Court's Herminghaus opinion and later, more emphatically, in the Fall River opinion it became obvious that under California law, as applied to the USA under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, they could not just take riparian rights without compensation because they are California property rights. What to do? USA let it settle down for a few years, and then built this elaborate Potemkin Village of peace, harmony, and unanimity to deceive Judge Kerrigan, who apparently knew little about the underlying riparian issues anyway. It worked. The Decree stripped all Stony Creek riparian rights without compensation, in direct and deliberate violation of California, and thus Federal, law. So why doesn't some Federal Judge fix this? Well, first you have to find a Federal Judge who cares about the law, the Constitution, the rights of the little guy, and so on, which seems to be impossible . . . . Of course, the USA could fix this on their own initiative, but, once again, they take the oath to uphold the Constitution with their fingers crossed behind their back. . . .
• Proposed Report of Special Master in Chancery George E. McCutchen, 10/13/1925, and related motions by Mr. Baxter, an effort to get Angle decided before The California Supreme Court heard Herminghaus? This is an earlier, cruder assault on riparian rights, pp. 15-18. , rejected by the Court on 11/02/1925 after Morton showed up as an amicus. 4-1/4 years before they tried again after the Herminghaus furor died down. [while we're at it, if you examine pages 9 & 10 of this Proposed Report, plus sheet 5 of the blueprint attachment, you will see that Holly Reimers was right and USA, OUWUA, and the Water Master were wrong when they tried to reduce the allocation under the agreements with Wackerman & Reimers (Hall & Scearce), which wound up costing Ms. Reimers an eighth of a million dollars in legal fees; Mr. Baxter laid it out clearly - later stip by Mr. Morton muddied it up a bit and in the process suckered Judge KARLTON into ruling against Wackerman & Reimers, 760 F.Supp 1366 (E.D.Cal.1991), overturned at the Court of Appeal, 7 F.3d 891 (1993) ]
• 03/25/1926 hearings resume; these hearings were much more comprehensive than provided for at the 1924 "submission"; they read into the record property descriptions for all disclaimer and pro confesso defendants; were they trying to do an end-run on Herminghaus in case it was upheld, at least to support a claim to the rights taken from defaulters?
• 09/18/1929 Last hearing before the Special Master; For the Plaintiff: Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Richard J. Coffey, Esq.; Defendant briefs or argument mentioned in the 11/07/1929 Report of Master:
  • PROTEST of the BROWNELLS citing Herminghaus - precisely on point, rejected dismissively by McCutchen with no notice to Brownells, no indication Judge Kerrigan ever saw it - the treatment of the Riparians by the Decree was flat-out illegal under California law as applied under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, but Coffey & Morton suckered Judge Kerrigan, and McCutchen and Hankins went along with it?
  • Brief of Ayer, new meaning to the word "brief"
  • BRIEF BY MR. RANKIN, soon to be Judge Rankin, mentioned at p. 8 of the 09/18/1929 transcript and in the Report of the Special Master, WITHDRAWN, not in the Court's older Angle Archives, but attached to DOJ's 01/12/1990 Doc. #144 as Exhibit M (for some reason a copy of the Brownell's protest, with typewritten signatures, is attached to it). A quick read shows why DOJ Attorney Morton & the Special Master were so eager to give Mr. Rankin what he wanted to get him to withdraw this brief from the record. It's sad Judge Kerrigan never got a chance to read it.
  • And this is why Judge Kerrigan never saw it: LETTER, OLIVER P. MORTON, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, to R.M. Rankin (soon to be Judge Rankin) Let's hide these little problems from the judge, shall we old friend? Let's not let him see anything that "...MIGHT HAVE A TENDENCY TO DISTURB THE NICELY BALANCED SITUATION...." Doc. #144, Exhibit N - What other side settlements were there? JAMES MILLS' ORCHARDS and other DOWNSTREAM UNDERFLOW DEFENDANTS? GCID? STATE OF CALIFORNIA?
  • Proposed Amendments of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to Proposed Findings and Judgment.
• Report of Master pro hac vice George E. McCutchen, 11/07/1929, never served on anyone? Service not found. Who wrote this? McCutchen? Or was it more of Morton's mischief?
• Notice of hearing for the adoption of the Decree, etc., noticed for the WRONG YEAR, with a very short lead time, and on a day that turned out to be in the second day of a storm that dropped a record snowfall with record cold temperatures and left roads impassable for most of the upstream watershed
• Morton & Coffey slip a deliberate violation of Section 8 of the Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 & California riparian rights law it was supposed to apply past Judge Kerrigan: this untitled filing is what actually got signed, later marked "Proceeding & Order" by the Clerk - The Decree was not signed or is MISSING, this untitled paper was typewritten, signed, and filed the same day as the "hearing" - the paper seems to be an anticipatory fiction.
• FRAUD ON THE COURT Declaration Part 1 - Why the Angle Decree must be set aside and the case dismissed
• FRAUD ON THE COURT Declaration Part 2 - a fraud on the court timeline (the question raised therein about Mr. Eriksen being sworn is resolved, record of his oath is at p. 91 of the transcript)
• FRAUD ON THE COURT Poster, for your window
• A Cold Day in Hell - Per the evening 01/13/1930 Sacramento Bee, at 10:00 a.m. that morning, the scheduled time for the Angle Decree hearing, it was 29 degrees Fahrenheit in Sacramento, 1" of snow was on the ground, and people were making snow men on the grounds of the State Capitol as shown in the front page photos. In Willows the snowfall was the heaviest in decades, some 3", out in the upper Stony Creek watershed the accumulation was 6"; no one from the upper watershed could have made the hearing without leaving 2 days or more in advance - it's questionable how many from Willows could have made it, or, for that matter, how many from Sacramento were there on time (this is Sacramento, not some eastern city used to snow). Was Judge Kerrigan even there?

I. - THE PRINTED AND PUBLISHED DECREE BOOK - - some 524+ pages:
• Plaintiff's Opening Brief, - - 70+ pp: includes an erroneous 20-page rant on why The California Supreme Court in Herminghaus and Fall River was wrong and why that Court's position on California law will fade - of course, that didn't happen, the law went the opposite direction. This position was contrary to California law and the Reclamation Act of 1902 and the basis for the unlawful assault on California riparian law and rights in the Findings and the Decree.
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - - 273+ pp plus Plate - but see "Settlement of Findings" below
• THE DECREE (note that although Judge Kerrigan signed the 04/14/1930 "Corrected Decree" there is nothing in the Angle record that shows he signed it on 01/13/1930 or even hints that either Judge Kerrigan or the Special Master ever read the Decree or the Findings) - - 01/13/1930 (corrected 04/15/1930), 178+ pp - There are 3 versions of the Decree:
  • The 1928 printed version bound in the Decree Book, which has two page 165s and last page number 178, back cover of Court's copy inscribed "filed, 04/19/1928 George E. McCutchen, Special Master." This seems to be the version that appeared in various public libraries.
  • The 1930 printed version , with print signature of Judge "Frank H. Kerrigan" and date of 13th day of Jan., 1930, with last page number 179 fixing the duplicate page number problem in the previous version. There are other minor changes from the 1928 version, mostly changing the treatment of a few of the defendants, plus filling in some blanks left in the original. The Decree was never signed. A copy of this seems to be the copy that is at the Department of Justice Natural Resouces Section of which they filed a PDF with the Court on 09/05/2008 [the SWRCB schedule they appended to it is not part of the Decree], and copies of this seem to be what the Clerk certifies (and presumably the one in the Judge's chambers), including the 1956 certified copy held by Somach et al.
  • The 1930 printed version with inked corrections "corrected in accord with the order of 04/14/1930", note of the corrections signed by Judge Frank N. [sic] Kerrigan [his H looks like an N ?], this is the only signature on the Decree - The copy on this web site, linked above, is this corrected copy - the ink corrections on the Appropriation & Riparian schedules from the signed 04/14/1930/filed 04/15/1930 amendments are the Court's corrections; designated "Corrected Decree" by the 04/14/1930 order;
• Amendments to the Decree
  • The Settlement of The Findings - Amendments Made In Printed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Suggested Decree, 09/18/29 - incorporated in the 1930 printing
  • Tightening the Grip: Water Master Order, 04/15/1930 - Exhibit "B" contains corrections to the Decree, which are handwritten on the 1930 printing, to be called a "Corrected Decree"; order includes provision for confiscation of property, water rights, etc. for non-payment of assessments

V. - Some of the aftermath:

• Estimated cost to prepare the record for appeal in 1930, _____ or in today's dollars, _______ -- None of these hardscrabble upstream farmers could afford that, let alone afford a lawyer to read it all and press the appeal; note that per the transcript, anyone claiming a right, whether riparian or appropriated, had to post funds in advance to cover court costs and transcript costs.
• Water Master Orders
  • E. T. Eriksen, 04/15/1930
  • E. A. Garland, [03/14/1932]
• CONTEMPT OF COURT filings/Arrests/Water Master cutting off water, partial list [these are included to suggest to you what the Stony Creek riparians have suffered - meanwhile, downstream users have diverted water far in excess of their rights under the decree]:
  • St.John Outing Club, D. E. Studybaker, Bruce H. Sutliff, M. G. Bedford, Geo. W. Lewis and Frank W. Lewis, 1931, non-payment of Water Master assessments
  • Henry Werth and Mrs. May E. Werth, 1932, diversions, barred Water Master from property, tore down his signs; order for arrest; bench warrant; jail sentence suspended; probation officer requested termination and discharge of probation after one year....; thing is they actually had rights to that water, which was cut off by the dam when it severed the year-round underflow
  • Ben F. Provence and Jane Doe Provence, 1933, pumped water out of a ditch onto 3 acres; order for arrest; bench warrant....
  • E. A. Wright, 1947, flushing his toilet without a meter....
  • Gary Gregory, 1985, irrigating outside of his irrigation season but inside OUWUA's season....
  • Joseph M. Castro, 1992, needed a better measuring weir so the Water Master cut off his water....
  • And, while not a contempt of court proceeding, there's the decade-long efforts by Holly Reimers to preserve her water rights and the continual bad faith of Reclamation and OUWUA as they breach no less than 12 consecutive agreements, statements, or orders showing specific to her obligations
• Order CHANGING PROCEDURE for changing points of diversion
• Order appointing a Watermaster Supervision Committee, and more Water Master orders....
• Stonyford Municipal Water System Orders/Opinions, the U.S. Attorney on both sides in court?
• [01/08/1986 requiring county parcel maps/building permits be furnished the Water Master for review by the Water Master Supervision Committee ? ]
• Wackerman & Reimers (Hall & Scearce) Orders & Opinions
  • Interim orders
  • Summary Judgment order
  • Order Reversing and Remanding, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, Opinion, 7 F.3d 891, 1993
  • Subsequent orders/rulings/opinions
• Recent orders
  
  
• 2000, 2005 - 2010 COURT ELECTRONIC FILINGS, Docs #253, 264 - 322
  
  We have a 3-branch system of government. In our system, the legislative and excecutive may make mistakes and fix their mistakes, but judicial mistakes are carved in stone. Why? Arrogance: the judiciary thinks it is better than the other 2 branches of government. All the excuses, all the justifications, still resolve in arrogance - the courts don't fix their own mistakes because they don't have to. Remember "the divine right of kings to rule"? See also Old Testament, Esther Ch. 8 verses 8-11 et seq. on the contortions infallible rulers force upon their subjects. All the subjects have to do is figure out the right "form" of pleading?

VI. - RELATED CASES:

• Overall case list
  
• Reclamation beats up Wackerman & Reimers, see above and comprehensive Angle index 1989-1995
• Reclamation (et al.) beats up Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District:
  • USA v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District CVS-91-1074-DFL-JFM case index
  • Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. USA CVS-91-1128-DFL-JFM case index - not content with stealing water rights from everyone else in the watershed, how Reclamation suckered GCID out of their Stony Creek rights; unreported Opinion by Judge David Levi chock full of misstatements about the Angle Decree; includes deposition of George Wilson on the relationship of the Angle Decree and the fix GCID was in;
  • GCID & other Irrigation Districts try over and over again to get Reclamation to honor the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts, USDC ED Calif., 96-00942, 01-01816, et seq.; settlement, breach, settlement, breach, surprise, surprise. . . . See also the MOUs towards the bottom of this web page.
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and predecessor decisions, opinions, resolutions, permits, filings, etc. related to Stony Creek [some 314 of them?] , for the most part violative of the Angle Decree :
  • Reclamation:
    • Ap. A 2212 - Stony Gorge, Decision D 83, nullified by the Decree,
    • Ap. A 18115 - Black Butte case index Decision D 1100, violates the Decree
      • Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan 11/13/1998 ( scanned by Capitol Digital Document Solutions, Sacramento - broken up into 6 consecutive segments for ease of downloading), one, two, three, four, five, six ; Bibliography & References recast in html
      • Protest against 40-year extension of Black Butte storage and diversion, filed 10/01/2009: Table of Contents (not filed, prepared later); Forms, Supplement, Exhibits - A mini-EIR/EIS on what Reclamation did to the environment and the people of the upper Stony Creek Watershed
        • SWRCB rejection of my protest ; (contrast their form-letter rejections with what they do after the protest is dead and gone, such as the CSPA protests in the 1990s followed by exactly the type of environmental review CSPA requested, see the 18115 index) ;
          - first follow up letter ,
          - second follow up letter
        • first petition , California Public Records Act regarding protest & appeal procedures & underground regulations; SWRCB Response, or, how the State Water Resources Control Board rigorously analyzes protests using nothing less than the finest quality scientifically calibrated OuiJa Boards.
        • second petition, for reconsideration of rejection of Protest ; points & authorities in support ; Ap. 18115 protests over the years, 67 received, 58 rejected, etc.; possible issues list ; salmon page at 01/12/2009 ; Ap. 18115 Orders, Decisions, Decrees, Environmental Reviews ;
        • Supplement to second petition; 02/11/2010 Mendocino National Forest Letter
        • Second Supplement to second petition
        • Third Supplement to second petition; web pages frozen at 04/06/2010 for filing of a petition for writ:
          Exhibit A - 10/01/2009 Protest Table of Contents
          Exhibit B - Excess Diversions by Orland Project - Table
          Exhibit C - Excess Diversions by Orland Project - Bar Chart
          Exhibit D - Diversion Limits in the Angle Decree & Excess Diversions by USA and GCID
          Exhibit E - Forces that Led to the Decline of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed
          Exhibit F - Collected References to Salmon on Stony Creek
          Exhibit G - Seismic Issues with USA Dams on Stony Creek
        • 04/12/2010 Petition for Writ of Mandate [added case number]; Exhibit A - Exhibits on-line [version with embedded links]; Request for Preparation of Administrative Record; Written Notice under Public Resources Code Section 21167.5 , with attached proof of service by mail; Notice of Related Case; Civil Cover Sheet; Notice of Case Assignment; Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs; USA scanned the whole package in and told the Federal Judge, "See! He's suing us!" or some such, 314 & 314-2 & 314-3;;
          • Notice of Compliance with CCP §388 & Calif.Publ.Res.Code §§21167.7, 21167.6(a), 21167.6.5(a), & 21167.6.5(c)
          • Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference [State's first filing]
          • Notice to a Responsible Agency, etc., with mailing list
          • Settlement papers: SWRCB letter; AG email; 06/10/2010 forms [copies filed by US AG w/USDC as #319-2 ] ; in essence everything is set aside while SWRCB thinks about it; per the court clerk, on July 2, nothing happened? (no box is checked)
        • Another opinion from staff, accept in part, reject in part, that is, accept so they can ignore it later. SWRCB turns a blind eye to massive theft of water, and applies one set of standards to favored applicants and a harsher one to the rest of us. Time to abolish the SWRCB? No more California water bonds?
        • Fourth Supplement to second petition
        • Third petition, for reconsideration of rejection of Protest ; points & authorities in support ;
        • California Water Bonds letter to the editor, form
      • and my related Motion filed 12/21/2009 Doc #307 to require changes in practices of the Water Master, Motion Hearing set for 02/08/2010, reset at 04/05/2010 at 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: #307-2 # 1 Memorandum in support of Motion; #307-3 # 2 exhibits in support of motion; #307-4 # 3 proof of service, CM/ECF; #307-5 # 4 proof of service, mail; #307-6 # 5 proposed order) before the next step -
        #309 Hearing postponed to 04/05/2010 10:00 a.m.
        #310 Response by USA, plus attachments: 310-2 (Response by Water Master); 310-3; 310-4; 310-5; 310-6; 310-7; 310-8;
        #311 Response by OUWUA & GCID [yes, their attorney is representing both the agent, successor & assign of plaintiff USA AND the most important defendant, GCID]
        #312, My Reply Brief and Attachments
        
        #316, Judge's 04/28/2010 Order
        05/25/2010 317 Defendant's brief on Remedies
        05/25/2010 318 USA brief on Process to Enforce Decree [sort of]
        06/14/2010 319 USA Notice to USDC of Dismissal of Settlement and Dismissal of State Court Petition, 319-2 dismissal paperwork
        #322, Judge's 07/26/2010 Order
  • Applications with Reclamation involvement that extended Reclamation's Angle reach (case indexes):
    • A 20104, Retzloff Black Butte severed lower Stony underflow which cut off Retzloff's right and their SWRCB permitted water (not that the SWRCB permit was ever valid), their right being to water in excess of that awarded USA in the Decree; SWRCB botched the investigation, missed the excess diversions, and missed that Reclamation was channeling water around Retzloffs via Orland Project Canals and Lateral 40 into the Tehama-Colusa Canal, and rejected the complaint
    • Stony Creek Water District & Westcamps, A 23995, A 25261,
    • 4E Water District & Eames, A 24089, A 24090, A 24091, A 24136,
    • Andreotti, et al. A 24758 D-1558, WR 80-13, WR 80-18, WR 82-10, Ap to add a 3200 a-f irrigation reservoir on Indian Creek, furious Reclamation response including state (Colusa Superior #15473) & federal ( USDC ED Cal 80-900 ) court complaints filed, SWRCB held out for county of origin rights; after years of trying to get his irrigation project going applicant lost the property to foreclosure, 4-5 different owners, 4-5 engineers and 33-years and many thousands of dollars in permit & extension fees, attorney fees, & engineering costs later, property owners eventually gave up, permit revoked, leaving small orphan unpermitted reservoir at the site and SWRCB citing D-1558 and D-1100 ( Black Butte 18115) as source for finding Stony a fully-appropriated stream
    • City of Santa Clara Power Plants [indexing in progress], 26378 - Stony Gorge using water stored in excess of the Decreed limits, 26379 - Black Butte using water stored in excess of Decreed limits, plus added still more storage outside of the Decreed limits, 26745 - East Park defeated by Stonyford neighbors, or was it by the project economics?; related counter-applications by OUWUA, 26659, 26658, & A 26682; 27750 - High Line Canal
    • Colusa/Stonyford domestic water supply, A 27382 WR 79-6, WR 80-11 , violates the Decree on underflow, on use & diversion, on claiming against, on grant to Reclamation of right to sell water outside of Project
      
  • Other Applications with Reclamation/OUWUA/GCID Involvement
    • App. A 13459, Setzer Forest Products/Glenco/Louisiana Pacific/Whitney Construction - where is the permit to pipe Stony Gorge water to this plant? Also Whitney: 19297, 19298, 20513, 28994 (staff imposing cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to excavate & preserve 3 archaeological sites)
    • A 14115, A 18965, A 19437 (Spurlock), A 19913 (Spurlock), A 20337, A 20614, A 20615, Wright/Jamieson/Elk Creek Associates/Sandy Lake/Mast
    • App. A 19437, A 19910, A 19911, A 19912, A 19913, A 24810, A 24811, Spurlocks
    • App. A 20251, Wilson/Peter/Connor/Century Ranch
    • App. A 26130, Black Butte Land & Cattle/Caruso
  • United States Forest Service/Mendocino National Forest, but still USA so under the Angle Decree, all violate the Decree [SWRCB indexes are inconsistent, requreing sifting through thousands of filings to find as many of these as possible] :
    • Ap. A 17872 - Letts Lake, Upper Letts Creek to South Fork Big Stony
    • Ap. A 20579 - Bear Wallow Springs, to Grindstone Creek
    • Ap. A 30010 - Salt Creek Saddle Conservation Camp, Tehama County, to North Fork Stony Creek , California Division of Forestry & California Department of Corrections, land at diversion & point of use still Forest Service, so CDF & Corrections are "assigns"
    • Ap. A 30017 - temporary version of A 30010
      
      
    • Ap. S 3606 - stock watering, Salt Creek to North Fork Stony Creek, SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 Section 1 T22N R7W Tehama [s/b Glenn, Check] County
    • Ap. S 3862 - stock watering, Salt Creek to North Fork Stony Creek, NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 5 [off 23N05 ? ], T22N R7W Glenn County
    • Ap. S 4504 - stock, road maintenance, fire control, South Fork Elk Creek, Glenn County, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 20 T20N R7W
    • Ap. S 4508 - stock, road maintenance, fire control, Clover Creek to Briscoe Creek, Glenn County, SW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33 T20N R7W
    • Some 65 other Aps
  • Bureau of Land Management :
  • SWRCB "dummy" filings? A 25513, A 25514
    
    
  • Aps without overt USA/OUWUA/GCID involvement or interference :
    • A 00334, Masterson
    • A 14865, Updegraff, Hambright Creek
    • A 20603, A 22776, A 23740, Knudsen, Reimers; Hambright Creek
    
    
  • SWRCB Stony Creek Complaint files, all 4 of them? & all mishandled?

VII. - DIVERSION LIMITS IN THE DECREE and EXCESS DIVERSIONS BY PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - contrasting surface flow diversions allowed by the decree with the huge excesses actually taken by the United States of America ; Proofs, findings, and Decree limiting USA to 4.05 acre-feet per acre of Project lands (no other lands) actually irrigated :

• Establishment and affirmations of the Orland Project 4.05 a-f/acre diversion limits.
• Supplemental Schedule of Brownell & Reimers lands for the Diversion Limits schedule

VIII. - WHERE HAVE ALL THE FISH GONE?

• Before Reclamation, the fishing above Black Butte was wonderful - unrefuted testimony of Senator & Judge Purkitt; comments in SWRCB ap file 18115 suggest that these fish were SALMON from a run rendered EXTINCT by RECLAMATION
• References in SWRCB filings by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance lead to Clark, G.H. 1929, pp. 44-45 of Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) fishery of California. Division of Fish and Game of California Fish Bulletin No. 17, 73 pages. (the full bulletin is here, Stony Creek is in Part II)
• A more thorough summary is in the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinions & drafts, NMFS 03/11/2002, NMFS Biological Opinion on Lower Stony, collecting the Chinook history of the stream
• NMFS 01/29/2007 draft BiOp
• NMFS 06/20/2008 Final BiOp
• Collected references to salmon on Stony Creek, including those mentioned above

IX. - Uh, what do I do if there is an EARTHQUAKE? - Collected references to the seismic vulnerability of the Federal Dams on Stony Creek.

X. - More aftermath of the Decree:

• While the case progressed, Reclamation filed Millsite, later Stony Gorge, appropriation application but public notice was "inadvertently" overlooked for years, long after many riparians had been beaten into submission.
• George Clark's registered and perfected water right, rendered null by the Reclamation juggernaut
• An upstream riparian gives up her allocation rather than pay the Water Master fees.
• Arrested for using your irrigation water for your indoor toilet?
• Suffering.
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation makes war on stock ponds, and warns upstream riparians not to steal its water. Meanwhile, Reclamation takes as much as it wants far in excess of what the Decree allows USA.
• Army Corps of Engineers takes land for pennies on the dollar for Black Butte because Reclamation stole the irrigation rights
• A Black Butte Dam allocation for Bureau of Reclamation, SWRCB Decision D 1100
• An organized opposition to Reclamation's Black Butte water grab; SWRCB refuses to accept their protests; Reclamation retaliates, tells the Court anybody with a stock pond is a thief and demands Contempt of Court proceedings, no Court proceedings but Association intimidated and disbands so the demand seems to have done its job
• Orland Unit Water Users Association offers to pay all the Water Master Costs [which is only fair since they are the beneficiary of the Decree.]
• Hard feeling against the Orland Project.
• Tehama-Colusa Canal completed; SWRCB keeps Reclamation from exporting water via unbuilt "Stony Canal" link; Reclamation tries end-run with T-C Canal CHO (Constant Head Orifice) on Stony Creek
• OUWUA obtains financing to drill 42 deep water wells into the Stony Creek Fan from, Guess Who? Reclamation!
• Fouts Springs - Forest Service's efforts to protect rights & provide water for the camps
• California State Water Resources Control Board position on their Stony Creek jurisdiction, if any - Term 92, etc.
• Per the Glenn County General Plan, The Orland Project, a project of hobby farms? ; other hobby farm comments
• CENTURY RANCH - a development conceived without understanding the stranglehold Reclamation has on the watershed and while the Ranch suffers in thirst tens of thousands of acre-feet of water flow past them on the way to being wasted by Reclamation and OUWUA, the Ranch story, Association home page, local realtor Charlene Metcalf (she has more signs than anybody, her page lists opportunities)
• The Stony Creek Underflow, 6,700,000 acre-feet of fresh water wasted by the Orland Project?
• Letter to Glenn County Supervisor Sprague regarding the importance to upstream riparians of preserving and enhancing the downstream recharge capabilities.
• Letter to Glenn County Supervisor Sprague regarding preserving the recharge capacity of the Stony Creek Fan.
  
  
• Various original deeds, or patents signed by various U.S. Presidents, are on file with the Court in Sacramento. Is yours there?
  

XI. - Links:

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's glossy version of "The Orland Project". -- Check out their "Project History" for their failure to acknowledge either their mistakes in The Orland Project or their subsequent attacks on upstream riparians.
• An Army Corps of Engineers' glossy version of its "Black Butte Dam" Reservoir
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's glossy version of its Sacramento Canals Unit, including "Tehama-Colusa Canal"

XII. - ALTERNATIVES [revise this]:

• Setting Aside the Angle Decree: A Draft Order Outline. - obsolete
• Setting Aside the Angle Decree: A Draft Issues Outline. - obsolete
  
  
• Forming the "Newville Irrigation District", and petitioning to annex to the Metropolitan Water District to gain sufficient litigatory power to regain our irrigation rights? The water in the Stony Creek Fan is worth $2,700,000,000 (that's "billions") at MWD non-agricultural wholesale rates, and, unlike oil, it replenishes....
  
  
• Splitting off upstream Stony Creek Watershed lands in Tehama, Glenn, and Colusa Counties as a new "Stony Creek County" and pursuing a "County of Origin" strategy? - we've been paying taxes to the same people who've been stealing our water
  
  
• Why not negotiate?
  
  Negotiating with Reclamation is like negotiating with the North Korean government: there's this great production of meetings, many representatives of many interests, solumn discussions for days on end hammering out minutia, DOJ lawyers denying the undeniable, the USA's deep pockets hammering the opposition until reduction to a settlement of some sort taking a few more nibbles out of Reclamation's opponents with each successive "settlement", a signing ceremony, every one goes home thinking "peace in our time" [Yes that's a different era, but the concept holds, "all we wanted was the Sudetenland"], and then they go right on with what they were doing as if nothing had happened and everyone (including the courts if they ever grasp what's going on) feels really stupid except for Reclamation. Examples abound: Angle Decree, GCID, Reimers, CSPA, TCC, Orr Ditch, Walker River, San Joaquin salmon, Trinity salmon, and so on.
  
  
• See the protest and related motion, above, under SWRCB Ap A 18115
  
  
• It might be possible to subsume the Angle Decree (and fix its mistakes?) in an adjudication of the entire Sacramento River Basin

---

---

XIII. - Because they're not exactly elsewhere on the web:

A. - SACRAMENTO RIVER/CVP :
• [substantive plan referenced in the original Federal Central Valley Project legislation]
  
  
• 11/24/1986 CVP/SWP Coordinated Operation Agreement. as incorporated by reference in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. )
  
  
• 07/07/1952 Memorandum of Understanding Relating to a General approach to Negotiations for Settlement of Water Diversions from the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with the Objective of Avoiding Litigation (MOU), USBR & Sacramento Valley water users, or if your Adobe Reader complains, try this copy
• 01/31/1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Named Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and the United States of America for the Preparation of Data in Aid of the Renewal of Settlement Contracts; and comments in 08/05/2002 Somach letter. [What is the status of the SRSCs?]
  
  
B. - STONY CREEK:
• Maps of parcels taken for Black Butte, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Map 1 01/26/1970, Map 1-A 01/26/1970, Map 2 12/04/1959
  
  
• 04/1968 Eel River Basin, Interim Report on Water Resources Development for Middle Fork Eel River, USACE, project to divert the Eel into the Central Valley via Grindstone Creek & Stony Creek and held in a massive reservoir inundating Newville, Elk Creek and so on, a concept ended by the Eel being declared a wild & scenic river; 10-meg segments one, two, three, four, five;
• 08/1973 Paskenta-Newville Unit, CVP, Reclamation; in 10 meg segments one, two, three, bibliography pdf p. 97, four, bibliography pdf p. 4;
• 11/1980 Thomes-Newville and Glenn Reservoir Plans, Engineering Feasibility, DWR; in 10 meg segments, one, two, references pdf p. 32, 43, 59, 83, 89; very extensive chronological bibliography pdf p. 107 (including Angle Decree);
  
  
• Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan 11/13/1998 [as linked above under SWRCB Ap 18115]; in 6 segments for ease of downloading), one, two, three, four, five, six ; Bibliography & References recast in html
  
  ( many of these reports I had scanned by Capitol Digital Document Solutions, Sacramento, to ensure best quality )
  
  
C. - COLUSA, GLENN & TEHAMA COUNTY HISTORIES:
• Major histories:
  • 1880 Will S. Green, "The history of Colusa County, California : and general history of the state"
  • 1892 Justus H. Rogers, "Colusa County Its History Traced from a State of Nature through the Early Period of Settlement and Development, to the Present Day with A Description of its Resources, Statistical Tables, Etc. Also Biographical Sketches of Pioneers and Prominent Residents"; a searchable copy and a plain text alternative is on Google among other places.
  • 1918 Charles Davis McComish and Mrs. Rebecca T. Lambert, reformatted 2.5 meg html "History of Colusa and Glenn Counties California with Biographical Sketches", from optical scan at archive.org, without the photos, cleanup in progress; full 60 meg pdf copy and other formats at View the book
  • 1951-2009 59 volumes of "Wagon Wheels", from the Historical Society of Colusi County - skimpy table of volumes & numbers, some 113 issues, by sheer page count this is collectively the most exhaustive history
    
    
  • History of Tehama County, by E.J. Lewis, [Superior Court Judge Edward Jefferson Lewis], 1880, publ. Elliott & Moore, San Francisco ; pdf images in four 10 meg segments: one, two, three, four; see also reprint 1975, California History Books, Fresno, CA; Stony Creek, p. 52-3, 74-6, 95, 113-114, 151, maybe more; much of the earlier content is also in 1918 McComish & Lambert (above); Bios, pp. 105 et seq.
• Others:
  • "The Story of the Land of Orland", L W. Wigmore , 1955
  • "The Land of Orland", Gene H. Russell, 2008, on Google
  • Index to "Tehama County Memories" 1983 - 2008, Tehama County Genealogical and Historical Society
  • Newville Cemetery annotated version of GenWeb Tombstone Transcription

D. - List of Contents of SWRCB Dewey Decimal files on Decrees which, of course, makes them accessible in that you may have them sent out for professional copying.

XIV. - Forces that led to the decline of the Upper Stony Creek Watershed (for which the Angle Decree was the final nail)

XV. - Lying, Cheating & Stealing - Misplaced faith in our government? For most governments in the world, lying, cheating & stealing is a way of life and is expected by the population. Government in the USA is a different sort of animal : from a very early age in this country we are instilled with the virtues of our system through the study of civics, U.S. history, political science, and even the study of law, as well as through the daily recital of the pledge of allegiance, the singing of patriotic songs, and so on. Thus to those of us in this country, it is almost always a surprise when our government behaves as it has in the Angle case. Is it our fault? Were we so gullible? What is the remedy? Give up? Endorse the evil?

Return to Sentinel Home.

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