THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley
George Wilson Deposition in Civ 91-1128

[A transcription of Doc 66, Watermaster George Wilson Deposition in Civ. 91-1128

Set up Judge Levi's order, but neglected to mention that storage can be a change of place & use of diversion; also states that OUWUA water is being fed to the Tehama-Colusa Canal

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. ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [cover]

[Stamp:]
FILED
??? 2 1992
?`
Deputy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

--oOo--

GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al.

Defendants.

No S-91-1128-DFL-JFM

--oOo--

DEPOSITION OF GEORGE G. WILSON

Monday, May 18, 1992
1:00 p.m.

--oOo--


Reported by: Michael J. LeROY, CSR, RPR License No 8023

Sandra M. Bunch & Associates
Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 3032

2110 K Street
Sacramento, California 95816
(916)969-4012

531 Oak Street No. 4
Roseville, California 95678
(916)782-4110

[end cover]
[page break]
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiffs: MINASIAN, MINASIAN, MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH & SOARES
Attorneys at Law
1681 Bird Street at Oak
Oroville, CA 95965
By: PAUL RYAN MINASIAN

For the Defendant United States of America: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Environmental & Natural Resources Division
650 Capitol Mail
3305 Federal Building
Sacramento, California 95814
By: MARIA AREVALO IIZUKA

[bottom of every page:]
SANDRA M. BUNCH & ASSOCIATES 969-4012

p. 2

INDEX
Examination by: Mr. Minasian Page 5 --o0o--

EXHIBITS

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No./ Description / Page

1 / Excerpt of R.O. Draft 11/22-1963 / 17
2 / Excerpt of USDC Order./ 47
3 / Application No. 18115, filed April 30, 1958. / 65
4 / Answer to protest. 65

p. 3

BE IT REMEMBERED that, on Monday, the 18th day of May, 1992, commencing at the hour of 1:00 p.;m. thereof, in the offices of Boutin, Lassner, Gibson & Delehant, 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California, before me, Michael J. LeRoy, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, State of California, there personally appeared

George G. Wilson,

a witness in the within-entitled action, called by the Plaintiffs herein.

--o0o-- The deposition was reported by Michael J. LeRoy, a duly Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California and a disinterested person, and therafter was transcribed into typwriting pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. --o0o--

GEORGE WILSON, having been first duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.

p. 4

[top of each page] GEORGE G. WILSON

EXAMINATION By: PAUL RYAN MINASIAN, Attorney at Law, counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs:
Q. Your name, please?
A. George G. Wilson.
Q. And your present residence address?
A. Right now I have two of them. My voting address is 5836 Dewey Drive, Fair Oaks, California, and my other address is route 5, box 5847, Orland, California. That’s where I spent most of my time.
And then the office address that I use, if you want that also, is 828 8th Street, in Orland,. California.
Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, during your years in employment, did you work with the Bureau of Reclamation?
A. Yes.
Q. And for how many years did you work for them?
A. I started in 1943 and I retired finally in 1979, I believe it was.
Q. During what period of time did you work in what I will call, for the moment, the water rights area of the Bureau of Reclamation’s activities?
A. Approximately from 1962 until my retirement.
Q. And that would be in 1979?
A. I’m trying to remember. I think it was ‘79.
Q. Now, prior to 1962, did you work with the bureau in some other capacity?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that capacity?

p. 5

A. Well, I started with them on power line in 1943, surveying up at Redding, while Shasta Dam was being constructed. I went into the Air Force for three years and came back and worked at the Orland project as a ditch rider for approximately seven or eight years and then transferred on to Antioch, California, and worked on the Contra Costa Canal for four years there, and then transferred to the regional office in Sacramento and worked in the ground water geology branch for four years, and the rest of the time after that I was in water rights section.
Q. So from 1962 to about 1979, you worked, in the water rights section of the Bureau of Reclamation --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in Sacramento?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what were your duties in that section of the Bureau of Reclamation during that period?
A. Very basically, it was to protect the water rights of the United States.
Q. And engaged in that were you called to look at various water rights issues relating to bureau projects and bureau functions throughout the state of California?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also work for the bureau in looking at their problems in other western states?
A. Primarily in California. I don’t remember that I got involved outside of California at all.

p. 6

Q. So from ‘62 to ‘79 you worked in the office of the bureau that was responsible for regulating and observing the bureau’s activities as they relate to California water law?
A. That's true.
Q. Now, as part of those activities, did you gain experience in the way that the bureau approached water rights and the way that the bureau negotiated its contracts for water deliveries?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you explain to us your experience during this period of ‘62 to ‘79 in regard to a series of contracts which are known as the Sacramento River contracts? Did you have any involvement in those contracts?
A. Yes. Regarding the Sacramento River contract, it was primarily, my involvement was primarily to determine water requirements and water uses and the lands to which they were to be applied, and the water rights that were available for those lands.
Q. Could you describe to us the general historical background, what was going on in the early nineteen-sixties at the bureau relating to Sacramento River contracts?
MS. IIZUKA: Isn’t that a little bit overbroad? Could you make it a little more --
MR. MINASIAN: Sure. I can narrow it for you.
Q. Mr. Wilson, during the period of the

p. 7

nineteen-forties, the bureau had built Shasta Dam; had they not?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were planning to build the Trinity project as a part of the supply system for the Sacramento River?
A. Yes.
Q. And downstream of Shasta Dam, on the Sacramento River, did you become aware during the period of 1962 to ‘79 that there were a number of individuals and entities, like irrigation districts, that claimed water rights to the water?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there a problem posed for the bureau in that the bureau was delivering water from Shasta Dam down this river and parts of the water were being utilized by the water right holders along the Sacramento River?
A. That’s true.
Q. Okay. Did this problem culminate in an attempt in the late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-sixties to enter into those contracts which we’ll call the Sacramento River contracts?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the purpose of those contracts, as far as the bureau was concerned?
A. I believe the purpose was to enter into a contract whereby the diverters paid the Bureau of Reclamation for the water which they diverted, to which the diverters had

p. 8

no legal water right to. So that the Bureau of Reclamation was being -- being repaid for the -- or just paid for the water that they were diverting.
Q. Okay. And was your role in that purpose in attempting to help the bureau understand what water rights these individuals and districts had along the Sacramento River?
A. I worked with the problems. I don’t know I would say it was to help the bureau to understand their water rights. I think they were teaching me water rights more than I was teaching them. But, yes, I was working with the problem of determining which entities had, water rights and the quantity of their water rights, in addition to many other things.
Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that you went to work in the water rights division in 1962. You’d done ground water hydrology work for about four years before that; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you worked in the ground water hydrology area in the Orland or Stony Creek fan area? Had you done work up there?
A. Yeah. It was only to the extent of monitoring wells that had been drilled in there for ground water elevations, yeah.
Q. So you would gather the data and put it in a form in which it could be recorded and used in future years relating to ground water wells?

p. 9

A. Yes.
Q. Now, in 1962, did you have an opportunity to work or do work relating to these negotiations of Sacramento River contracts for the bureau?
MS. IIZUKA: Can you define, I mean, are you using the term negotiation the way an attorney would negotiate a contract? Because George is not an attorney.
MR. MINASIAN: Right. Let me rephrase it.
MS. IIZUKA: Okay.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Mr. Wilson, did you become aware shortly after you’d joined the water rights division of the Bureau of Reclamation that there were discussions going on with various parties along the Sacramento River who claimed rights which were aimed at developing a contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Were one of those parties the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask this: Do you remember having any involvement with regard to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District negotiation or contract discussions?
MS. IIZUKA: Again, George is not an attorney and he would not be involved in negotiations. Now, if you want to ask him if he did work for attorneys or the sort of work he did, maybe that’s a fairer question, but since George is not an attorney, he couldn’t have been involved in the negotiations per se for contract negotiations. [why not?]

p. 10

MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Well, I think you’re mistaken about that, but let me ask a question to elucidate this.
Q. Also in the water rights division was a gentleman named Gleason Renoud?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else was in the division with you?
A. We had probably a dozen. It was a large staff at that time.
Q. And was this staff engaged in communications with the various parties that represented Sacramento River water rights holders such as Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. Yes.
Q. So the discussions and communications that went or occurred between the staff of the bureau or staff or consultants for the various districts, as well as for attorneys for the bureau and attorneys for the districts?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you involved in any of those activities relating to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. I was not involved in any of the negotiations. My role would have been limited to digging out numbers such as for water requirements and crop -- or water requirements for certain crops and for certain ground.
Q. Okay.
A. That type of determination.
Q. Did you have any contact with any of the specific

p. 11

issues relating to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District before the contract between GCID and the bureau for river rights was signed, to your knowledge?
A. I think your question may be a little too broad to answer.
Q. Let me narrow it down. Do you remember doing any specific work relating to the issues of how much water Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District had available to it under its water rights?
A. I would have to have been involved in some of the computations, but to remember, I couldn’t say specifically what.
Q. Do you remember any involvement of yourself in computing or determining the amount of water that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District had a right to out of Stony Creek?
A. Yes. I remember, because I was familiar with the Stony Creek area, I was asked to give what data I knew, what I had available. But, as I remember, the numbers that were negotiated by the parties were not necessarily the numbers that were -- came from various tables or were computed.
Q. Now, the computations that you did, were they related to the actual amounts of water that were in the creek at various points in time and the actual amount of water that was diverted by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at its main canal out of Stony Creek?
A. I would be guessing. I just can’t remember that

p. 12

closely that many years back precisely what -- I would say that would be the basis for the determination, would be the diversions by Glenn-Colusa and the water was available under their water right.
Q. Do you remember doing any other work relating to Stony Creek in this period of time, relating to Black Butte Reservoir, as an example?
A. No, I don’t think I did. My involvement with Stony Creek at that time probably would have related primarily to entities who were filing applications for water rights, and I would examine them and, if proper, file protests and conditions under which the permits would be approved.
Q. But you don’t have a recollection of being involved either formally or informally in the bureau’s filings with the State Water Resources Control Board in order to get the rights to build Black Butte and use water?
A. No, I don’t believe I was involved in that.
Q. Taking you back to the negotiations, excuse me, to the work you did relating to the Sacramento River contracts, do you recollect ever being involved in issues of what should be included within the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District contract in terms of use of Stony Creek water?
A. What I remember was there was some disagreement on the number, quantity of water that should be available to Glenn-Colusa under their Angle Decree right on the Stony

p. 13

Creek, and as I remember the main reason for the disagreement on this was that there were no numbers that would spell this out entirely. It had to be based on several factors.
Q. Can you remember what those factors were?
A. I believe they’re the same as they would be today, would be the water physically available in the creek for the water right and the ability for Glenn-Colusa to divert this water and the need to divert the water at specific times.
Q. Directing your attention back to 1962 to ‘65. Do you recollect whether or not one of the issues was whether or not Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District would have its dam up in Stony Creek and be able to actually utilize the water in a wet year?
A. Now, I could not say the specific years, but I do know that as many years as I can remember, that Glenn-Colusa did put their dam up in the creek, they shut -- bull dozed it up, or with a drag line, whatever means, they put in a gravel dam, which made it physically possible for them to take water coming down the creek, and also remember in many years the dam was washed out because too much water came down the creek. This was prior to Black Butte, when it wasn’t regulated. So in order to save their dam, and now this is an assumption, they would divert all the water they could into Glenn-Colusa, if they could.
Q. The recollections you have of the period of ‘62

p. 14

through ‘65 --
MS. IIZUKA: He didn’t say those were for ‘62, ‘65.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. MINASIAN: No, I’m going to lead into that.
MS. IIZUKA: Okay.
MR. MINASIAN Q: So the period of ‘62 to ‘65, before the contract between the bureau and GCID was entered into, do you have any recollection of looking at or studying the question of how feasible it was for Glenn-Coiusa to use early water, March 15 water to, say, May 1 water, out of Stony Creek?
A. During that period, no, I don’t believe I got involved in that at all.
Q. Do you remember ever advising Gleason Renoud, who was also on the staff of the bureau, in regard to what you thought the district’s right to water out of Stony Creek was worth or what quantity of water it was?
A. If I did, I don’t recollect it, and I think. Gleason was probably as well informed as I was at that time.
Q. Now, did you do any other work besides the Black Butte issues, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District contract, other Sacramento River contracts, that would relate to either Stony Creek or Glenn-Colusa during this period of ‘62 through ‘65?
A. I don’t remember doing any other than it would have been examining applications filed with the State

p. 15

Water Resources Control Board.
Q. Now, since leaving the bureau, you’ve become the Water Master on the Orland -- on the Stony Creek system; have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’re aware that there is a decree, a court judgment called the Angle Decree?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you understand that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is awarded and determined to hold certain rights under the Angle Decree?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you been asked by the bureau, the United States, to investigate and render any opinions in this matter relating to those rights?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what opinions you’ve been asked to render for the United States?
A. I was asked what in my opinion the extent of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s Angle Decree rights are on Stony Creek.
Q. Were you asked any other inquiries or questions?
MS. IIZUKA: That’s kind of broad.
MR. MINASIAN: Yeah, it is.
Q. If you can remember. Otherwise, I’ll lead you into them.
A. Well, I -- I can’t remember -- some of the --
Q. Let me ask you a different way, George.

p. 16

A. Yes.
Q. Did the United States and Maria Iizuka ask you to investigate anything relating to this litigation other than Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s water rights?
A. The only thing I can remember, and it was probably informally, whether or not there was any water available for Glenn-Colusa under their Angle Decree right at certain time.
Q. Any other acts that you were asked to do by the United States?
MS. IIZUKA: In connection with this litigation?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes, in connection with this litigation.
THE WITNESS: I can’t think of anything.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Well, if they come to you as we’re talking, will you interrupt me?
A. Yeah.
Q. You’re aware that a contract was actually signed between the Bureau of Reclamation and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in 1964; are you not?
A. Yes.
MR. MINASIAN: Let’s mark this Plaintiff’s 1.
(Whereupon Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
MS. IIZUKA: I want to be sure that it’s clear on the record that George is -- George was asked by Mr. Minasian whether or not he was aware that a contract had been entered into. I want to be sure it’s on the record

p. 17

that George’s awareness has nothing to do with his having been involved in negotiating the contract.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, George, looking at the first page, do you see this page bearing the date of 6th of April, 1964?
A. Yes.
Q. Purporting to be a copy of a contract between the United States and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District one of this series of Sacramento River contracts?
A. Yes. They were one of what we referred to as the Sacramento River Rights Contracting Program.
Q. The Sacramento River Rights Contracting Program involved a number of districts and individuals along the Sacramento River with differing water rights; did it not?
A. Yes. It involved basically everyone below Shasta Dam to the Delta, who diverted from the river or one of its tributaries, under the -- a form of water right, and who also used the project, water bureau project.
Q. From the experience both during the period before this was signed and in the many years with the bureau, did you come to understand that there were certain basic principles that were applied to most of the contracts and then there were certain specific provisions that applied in the case of specific issues relating to a particular contractor?
A. Yes.

p. 18

Q. Okay. Among the general principles that were applied to all contracts, there was a deficiency clause, so they took a cut in certain dry years?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a price that was payable and a term of the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, was there also a quantification of water into two categories, called base supply and project water?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was that done?
A. The -- on the form that you’re referring to, which we referred -- where we showed the quantities of water, there was first determined the total supply, and then that was broken down into what water would be available under the individual’s water right and what water he would have to pay for to the Bureau of Reclamation’s project water, and that was referred to as base supply and project supply.

The base supply being the water credited under the water right and the project supply being the bureau’s water.
Q. Was one of the general principles used in these contracts to establish an Exhibit A to the contract, which provided a schedule for deliveries?
A. Yes.
Q. And we’re looking now on Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s

p. 19

1, which is a copy of the Exhibit A to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District contract.

Was this a fairly standard approach that was used to all the contractors?
A. Yes. I’m trying to remember. Initially, I believe, everyone received an Exhibit A with this type of quantification. There may have been some that later, in lieu of the Exhibit A, worked off of a flat rate.
Q. Would that be a short form contract?
A. That would be a short form contract for smaller diverters.
Q. But generally, the larger diverters had this same format, which there was a --
A. Yes.
Q. -- a base supply column, a project water column and a total supply column. And then on a monthly basis, between April and October, the total quantity of water in each category available to the district was set?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why did the period not include the months of February, March, as an example, or November, December, as an example?
A. I would -- I believe it was determined that that was not the normal irrigation season, that that was outside of the irrigation season.
MS. IIZUKA: Can I just advise, if you -- if there’s a question that Mr. Minasian asks you that you either really don’t know the answer or -- tell him that,

p. 20

either you don’t know or that the answer you’re giving is basically, as he has said now, a guess, since he's not totally sure.
MR. MINASIAN Q: So would you like to rephrase your answer? I can ask it to you again, Mr. Wilson.
A. I think I can clear it up. In my opinion, it is this way because this was the accepted irrigation period.
Q. And if water was used in March or in November by a water right holder with this contract, there was probably water available in the river without the bureau making releases from Shasta? Was that another reason why the focus was on April through October?
A. I just don’t know, because you’re asking me, as I took it, if there was water available in the river, and I don’t know if there was or not.
Q. But you do know that this general format was used?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the project water was water that was paid for?
A. Yes.
Q. And that down at the bottom of this format there would be points of diversion, and on this particular one of Glenn-Colusa, do you see the Sacramento River and Stony Creek are both listed?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the Stony Creek notation says, "Intersection of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District main canal and Stony Creek, as shown on Exhibit B."

p. 21

Do you know where that is?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe it for the record?
A. That is the -- at the point where the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s main canal crosses Stony Creek.
Q. And at that point, the district pushes up a gravel dam and any water coming down Stony Creek is diverted into the canal at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. And historically, that’s occurred since you can remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I’m going to ask you to look at page 16, which is the next page in sequence in our exhibit Just go ahead and turn that over, George.
A. Oh, okay.
Q. George, if you ever want to look at the whole contract, just --
MS. IIZUKA: I’ve got it here.
MR. MINASIAN: Maria has got it or I have it.
THE WITNESS Yes
MR. MINASIAN Q: Down at the bottom of the page, do you see paragraph 9(a) says that there is an agreement on water quantities, and would you read that first subparagraph 1, starting with the word "It shall constitute full agreement."
A. "It shall constitute full agreement as between the United States and the Contractor as to the quantities of

p. 22

water and the allocation thereof between the base supply and Project water which may be diverted by Contractor from its source of supply," and I have a "of" here, I think that’s a misprint.
Q. Yes.
A. "For beneficial use on the land shown on Exhibit B which said diversion, use, and allocation shall not be disturbed so long as the Contractor shall fulfill all of its obligations hereunder."
Q. Now, with your work with the bureau, did you know one of the purposes of these river contracts was to come to an agreement as to the quantity of water which the districts would be entitled to take on a monthly basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, was there included in the standard river contract, or in Glenn-Colusa’s contract, any limit on the amount of capacity that the district could pump at any given moment in time, to your knowledge?
A. That the district could pump?
Q. Pump.
A. There would be pumping from the Sacramento River?
MS. IIZUKA: Are you asking George if there is anything in the contract that would limit the --
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: If you could point something out to George in the contract, wouldn’t that be easier?
MR. MINASIAN: If he recollects. If he doesn’t, let me move him through the pages, because it is simpler.

p. 23

Q. Would it be helpful for you to look at the document?
A. Without looking at the document -- I think the document probably speaks for itself, but without looking at it, I don’t remember any limitation on rate of flow that could be pumped.
Q. All right. Now, directing your attention to the Exhibit A that we looked at, which is a part of the contract, you note that there is no limit upon the Q or the quantity of water, rate of flow that can be taken at either Sacramento River or Stony Creek?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, with your work at the bureau, do you know why the bureau did not limit the district to the Q or quantity of water that could be taken at any instant?
A. No, I don’t know why. I might add that it would be a tremendous involvement if they were to try to do this on all Sacramento River contractors, if they were to establish a limit of the rate of flow.
Q. And you do see that Exhibit A instead deals on a monthly basis?
A. Yes.
Q. It gives you a total volume of water that you can take on a monthly basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, was that the general practice of the bureau relating to Sacramento River contracts?
A. Yes.

p. 24

Q. To your knowledge, was there any -- ever any specific discussion at the bureau about putting a quantity or rate of flow limit upon the diversions out of Stony Creek by the district?
A. I don’t recall any, any such conversation.
Q. All right. And you’d agree that paragraph 9(a), which is the agreement on water quantities, does not include a rate of flow limitation for Stony Creek diversions by the district?
MS. IIZUKA: Well, I’m going to object. I think the contract basically speaks for itself. I don’t think that either George or anybody else has to interpret what 9(a), or 9(a) 1 says.
MR. MINASIAN: But I’m entitled to ask him -- let me rephrase that.
Q. George, let me ask it in a different way: You’ve told us that you don’t remember any discussion at the bureau about including a rate of flow or instantaneous flow limitation on the Stony Creek diversions in the GCID-bureau contract.

Do you recollect any discussions at the bureau before the contract was entered into in which there was expressed any concern on the part of the bureau as to limiting Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to a certain amount of water that they could divert from Stony Creek?
MS. IIZUKA: Now, you’re talking about amount of water or pumping amount that they could pump in terms of --

p. 25

MR. MINASIAN: I’m talking about a rate of flow out of Stony Creek.
MS. IIZUKA: Rate of flow, not quantity? Because they’re two different things. You’re talking about total quantity or rate?
MR. MINASIAN: Let me rephrase the question so it’s absolutely clear.
MS. IIZUKA: Okay.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Prior to the time that the GC1D-bureau contract was signed, which we know occurred in about 1964, do you recollect any discussion among your cohorts in the water rights division at the bureau about a need to limit Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to either a quantity of water or a rate of flow that the district could get out of Stony Creek?
A. I remember that there was discussion pertaining to an annual quantity and acre feet that the bureau should be cred -- GCID, pardon me, should be credited based on their Angle Decree water right, and rate of flow, as I remember it, would not be involved except to the extent to determine what the right under that original Angle Decree water right would have been, what the quantity would have been.
Q. So taking that memory and looking at this contract, from the discussions you heard at the bureau and were part of, did the bureau carry forward that philosophy in this contract, which is to try to figure out totally how much water GCID should be able to get

p. 26

from a combined Stony Creek and Sacramento River diversion, but not worry about the instantaneous flow they could divert either from Stony Creek or Sacramento River?
A. I don’t recall any conversation that would indicate such, in that, as I recall, the base supply or the water that was credited to GCID from Stony Creek was put into the same base supply as comes out of the Sacramento River.
Q. On page 18, about midway down, do you see the phrase or sentence, "It is further agreed that.the Contractor at all times will first use water to the use of which it is entitled by virtue of its own water rights"?
A. Yes
Q. "And neither the provisions of this contract, action taken thereunder, nor payments made thereunder to the United States by the Contractor shall be construed as an admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this contract was in fact water to which it would not have been entitled under water rights owned by it nor shall receipt of payments thereunder by the United States from the Contractor be construed as an admission that any part of the water used by the Contractor during the term of this contract was in fact water to which it would have been entitled under water rights owned by it "

Now, during the course of your work with the

p. 27

bureau in ‘62 through ‘64, did you become aware of what the bureau intended by this language?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. George Wilson, as knowledgeable is he is, is not an attorney. I’m fairly certain that the ultimate language or the drafting of this language was done by attorneys. Again, I repeat the language of the contract pretty much speaks for itself.
MR. MINASIAN: But I’m asking George about whether or not he had any conversations with anyone else relating to what the bureau was trying to achieve by including language like this in the contract.
THE WITNESS: Relating to this specific language?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I have no recollection of it, any conversation.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, the next page, page 19, is paragraph 10(a). Would you read that to yourself and refresh your recollection about this language.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, do you see towards the bottom of page 19 the phrase, four lines up, "The Contractor," which would be GCID, "authorizes the United States to divert, store, or use such Stony Creek water"?
A. Right.
Q. Do you remember any discussions at the bureau with your cohorts relating to what the bureau was trying to obtain from Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in regard to Stony Creek?

p. 28

MS. IIZUKA: I’m just going to object for the same reasons I gave with regard to the earlier paragraph. Again, this is a legal document, George Wilson is not an attorney and would not have drafted the language. You are free to ask him the question, but there is an objection on the record.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay.
Q. Do you understand, George, that Maria has objected, you will go ahead and try to answer the question as best you can?
A. Okay. I think I’ll be answering your question.

As I understand this last part, it was, to make us aware that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District would not object to the Bureau of Reclamation storing water in Black Butte that would have otherwise been available to GCID under their Angle Decree.
Q. And did you come to any understanding as to what the advantage to the bureau was of that provision?
A. I don’t -- I don’t believe I even addressed it at that time.
Q. Since that time, have you come to understand what the advantage to the bureau is of having the right to direct the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to allow the bureau to store GCID’s Angle Decree rights?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. Objection to the form of the question. I -- it’s not -- the form of the question, in the sense of the bureau being allowed to store GCID’s Angle Decree rights. I don’t think that’s legally

p. 29

correct and I’m going to object to the question.
MR. NINASIAN: Let me break it down.
Q. You do see here that the language says the contractor, GCID, authorizes the United States to divert, store, or use such Stony Creek water; do you not?
A. Yes, I see that in the contract.
Q. Based upon your experience on Stony Creek, both in 1962 through the time of the signing of the contract in ‘64, but also since that time, have you come to some understanding of what the benefits to the United States are from that right to store the GCID’s Stony Creek water?
A. Well, at this time, the problem I have with this language is that -- and this is as Water Master -- I don’t believe GCID can grant a right to the Bureau of Reclamation to store water under the Angle Decree in the Black Butte Reservoir.
Q. So your concern is that you don’t think Glenn-Colusa has the right to consent to the bureau’s storing GCID’s waters?
A. Now you’ve changed it and you’ve said consent to them storing it, rather than granting the right to store it.
Q. You do see the word the "Contractor authorizes"?
A. Yes.
Q. So let’s use that phrase.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you think that GCID had the right to authorize

pl. 30

the United States to divert, store or use?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. Why don’t we, Paul, if you’re asking the question, why don’t you read the whole thing? The fact of the matter is, can you read what you’re asking George to look at without looking at the earlier part of that sentence, which says, "Any time during the period April through October of any year that the Contracting Officer requires the Contractor to take water from Sacramento River that it would otherwise be entitled to divert from Stony Creek," and I think that’s critical language.
MR. MINASIAN: All right. Let’s look at the whole sentence.
Q. Have you got the whole sentence in mind now, George?
A. Yes.
Q. I’m not asking you for a legal conclusion. I’m just asking for either your personal experience in the time from ‘62 to ‘64, or I’m asking since that time, have you any reason to believe that GCID could not authorize the United States to divert, store or use Stony Creek water?
A. This may be a legal conclusion, and whether they could authorize it or not, I don’t know. I would say that the GCID could state to the Bureau of Reclamation that they would have no objection to them storing the water. Now, maybe we’re saying the same thing, and I have no problem with that.

p. 31

And, as Water Master, let me put in here that I have no problem with the agreement and the arrangement that the bureau and GCID have in this contract. I have no objection to it whatsoever, and the way it has been utilized, I think it’s been beneficial to everyone and unless something were to come up, I can’t imagine what, I would have no problem with it as it is.
Q. Now, what we’re doing here is trying to see if you have both personal knowledge of what the intention of the parties to this contract were and second, if your expert opinion leads to any interpretation of this language. So I’ve asked you whether you remember anything being discussed about what the bureau was attempting to obtain from GCID.

Do you have any recollection at all of talking with Gleason or talking with --
A. Well, very broadly, I would say that it was in order for the Bureau of Reclamation not to have to operate Black Butte Dam to accommodate the Glenn-Colusa’s Angle Decree water right, which would be an operation nightmare, that they entered into an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation where they would credit the Bureau of Reclamation with the quantity of water that -- or credit GCID with the quantity of water that they would have gotten out of Stony Creek.
Q. Now, this April 1 date, you’re familiar with the Angle Decree as Water Master; are you not?
A. Yes.

p. 32

Q. Do the rights of Glenn-Colusa actually start on an earlier date than April 1 under the Angle Decree?
A. As I recall, without looking at the book, March 15th is their date in the book.
Q. All right. Is Glenn-Colusa entitled under its Angle Decree rights to divert water or use water before March 15?
MS. IIZUKA: Divert water from Stony Creek?
MR. MINASIAN: Stony Creek.
THE WITNESS: Under the Angle Decree?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Again, the Angle Decree speaks for itself. I don’t believe I’ve seen anything in there that entitles them to divert prior to March 15th. I believe it says on or about, so I wouldn’t pin it down to one day, depending on the circumstances.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Is it a correct proposition, based upon your experience, the Angle Decree was not really concerned about whether water was used by a party under the decree in the months of February and early March?
A. I couldn’t say whether they were concerned. What I would say is that they limited the water rights to specific periods, and it would be an assumption to say that they weren’t concerned.
Q. Look at the top of page 20, if you would, and read that to yourself.

Now, do you recognize this paragraph as what we

p. 33

call the 10(a) paragraph, it starts on page 19 and goes through the middle of page 20, and, Mr. Wilson, do you see the specific language of the last sentence? It says, "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subdivision, the Contractor," which is GCID, "reserves the right to divert water from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree, for periods not to exceed five consecutive days, whenever its Sacramento River pumps are temporarily unable to meet its diversion requirements because said pumps are partially or wholly inoperable due to an emergency or an unforeseeable cause."
A. Yeah.
Q. First go back to your experience with the bureau. Did, at any time, anybody from the bureau discuss with you what this language meant before the contract was signed?
A. Pertaining to the five consecutive days of emergency?
Q. Or pertaining to the use of the word entitlements under the Angle Decree.
A. Yeah. I don’t recall any previous conversation.
Q. Now, during the period of ‘64 up through your retirement, were you involved in decision-making about the operations of water on Stony Creek, and do you recollect any discussions with any bureau personnel relating to the meaning of this language or the way it would be implemented?

p. 34

A. I think during that period, if it -- any discussions I may have had with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, it would have been basically that the bureau could release water from Black Butte to GCID or from the river, and that once the contract was signed, the quantities were moot, you might say. It was up to the bureau and GCID as far as the quantities, because they’re established in Exhibit A and it could be from either source.
MS. IIZUKA: Could I clarify that, George?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. IIZUKA: Paul is asking you whether or not you had any discussions with bureau personnel as to the meaning of this section that he -- or this sentence he just asked you to read, notwithstanding the other provisions of this subdivision, et cetera, et cetera.

I don’t think your answer was actually responsive to his question.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. MINASIAN: Let me get at it, George, with individual questions.
Q. From the time of ‘64, when the contract was signed, through ‘79, you did have some involvement with decision-making relating to how Black Butte and the Orland project would be operated; did you not?
A. A minor role, yes.
Q. And it was in the role of attempting to work out technically how much water was available and how the

p. 35

project, be it Shasta, Trinity, Orland project or Black Butte, would be operated?
A. Yeah. Like I say, in a minor role, yeah.
Q. And in that minor role, you did have occasion to deal with the question of whether or not Glenn-Colusa would be delivered water from Black Butte or from Shasta?
A. Oh, I did -- it was never a decision that was -- that was brought to me or -- I just don’t believe that anyone ever asked me about that particular question, in the operation, no.
Q. Did you become aware during this period of time that bureau personnel were working with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to dispatch water either from Shasta or from Black Butte?
A. That would be a normal routine every year.
Q. And did you ever hear anybody from the bureau say it made a difference to them, whether they took the water from Black Butte or from Shasta?
MS. IIZUKA: I’m going to object, because I think that article 10(a) pretty much says that the United States reserves the right to require that the contractor shall divert all of its total supply or any portion thereof from either the Sacramento River or Stony Creek, and I think the implication or clear meaning of that is that it’s the Bureau of Reclamation that makes the determination of where the water is going to come from. It’s not an either/or.
MR. MINASIAN: But we’re just asking for his

p. 36

percipient view. What was -- was there a discussion that George overheard or was part of in which it made a difference to the bureau from which source the water came?
THE WITNESS: I can’t remember any specific time or occasion. However, I do know that there was discussion, more than once, on -- and it made a difference to the bureau, to the Corps and various other people, how Black Butte was operated, including the fish and wildlife, fish and game, on upstream diversions, but nothing specific that I could answer for you.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Do you have a recollection of anyone at the bureau ever saying, in the period you were working with the bureau, that the language of the GCID contract limited GCID to the amount of water that was in Stony Creek to which their rights attached at a given instant, if there was an emergency or unforeseeable cause?
A. No, I don’t remember any. We didn’t discuss it.
Q. Do you recollect any discussions in which the language "emergency or unforeseeable cause" was discussed with the bureau?
A. No, I don’t recall that.
Q. Now, the language of the contract says, "Right to divert water from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree." Do you see that language?
A. Yes.

p. 37

Q. All right. Now, in the years that you’ve worked with the bureau and the years you’ve been the Water Master, you’ve got to know this Angle Decree document fairly well; have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’re also aware of the use of terminology in water rights --
A. Yes.
Q. -- over the years, because this has been your life?
A. Yes.
Q And part of your duties were to go to the State Water Resources Control Board and participate in their proceedings over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the course of that time, you’ve become familiar with the way that water is described by people that work in this field?
A. Yes.
Q. Is water generally described by either quantity or rate of flow or both?
A. Both. One is dependent upon the other, in most cases. Usually cubic feet per second rate of flow, an acre foot quantity.
Q. And a certain quantity of water is important to someone in the water field, both in terms of the volume they get and the rate of flow that they get it at, isn’t it?

p. 38

A. Yes.
Q. So people working for the bureau in the water rights field are sensitive and knowledgeable about both the volume, or the quantity of water they get, and the rate of flow at which they have to deliver it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the language which is in the contract with the bureau and GCID, on page 20, do you see anything in this language which refers to rate of flow, based upon your experience?
MS. IIZUKA: I would have to object, because the Angle Decree is mentioned earlier on in 10(a), and I think the entire section has to be read in the -- in that context.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Let me rephrase the question.
Q. George, at this point, I’m going to ask you as an expert, looking at this language, just imagine you’ve never seen this before, you’re an expert in water rights, do you see anything in this language that refers to a rate of flow that you can divert water at a given instant in accordance with a certain amount of water?
MS. IIZUKA: Again, what language -- are you talking only about the little piece at the end?
MR. MINASIAN: Well, I’ll tell you what, why don’t we look at the whole of 10(a). See if you see anything in there that deals with rate of flow or instantaneous delivery.

p. 39

MS. IIZUKA: Doesn’t the Angle Decree deal with rate of flow? I’m asking you Paul.
MR. MINASIAN: I’m asking George as an expert to deal with the language here in the contract.
MS. IIZUKA: It mentioned Angle Decree twice in section 10(a).
MR. MINASIAN: If George, as your expert, wants to go into the Angle Decree after this, we’ll do that. But I’m asking George, using the phrases that are used by people in the water field, does he see anything in 10(a) which relates to rate of flow or instantaneous flow.
THE WITNESS: Give me a second here.
MR. NINASIAN: I will.
THE WITNESS: I don’t want to say something that I’ll have to retract.

10(a) only.

The only thing that I see here that I think would probably indirectly refer to a rate of flow is when they say divert from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree, because the entitlement under the Angle Decree is definitely a rate of flow.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Okay. Mr. Wilson, do you see anything else that would indicate to you that whoever wrote this language or agreed to it had something in mind relating to rate of flow?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. I think it speaks for itself. You’re asking him to reflect on the state of

p. 40

mind of the drafter of this contract.
THE WITNESS: In trying to remember, again, I keep thinking of the contract in its entirety, in addition to trying to pick out some specific line, and in the contract in its entirety, again, I see, nothing -- remember nothing relating to rate of flow, but it was quantity.
MR. MINASIAN Q: That is, in Exhibit A --
A. Yes.
Q. -- there was no rate of flow limitation?
A. (Witness nods head up and down).
Q. And looking at 10(a), the only language that you indicated might refer to it is the reference to the Angle Decree?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, with your experience in the water rights field and the operations of projects, what did -- what do you interpret this language to mean? Do you have an opinion about what this language means?
MS. IIZUKA: Which language?
MR. MINASIAN Q: Commencing with the word "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subdivision, the contractor reserves the right to divert water from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements."
MS. IIZUKA: I’m going to object because I think there was a declaration on file filed by George Wilson in which I think he addressed that very issue.

p. 41

MR. MINASIAN: I’m entitled to ask him what his opinion is.
MS. IIZUKA: Well, George can --- do you have a copy of his declaration?
MR. NINASIAN: No, no, I don’t.
THE WITNESS: I think I brought it with me. Do you have one?
MS IIZUKA:: No, I don’t Trying to see if I have it. I left it in the office.
THE WITNESS If I recall, the declaration was very brief.

I don’t think I have it with -- well, I’ve got more junk.

Here it is Now, where were we?
MS IIZUKA: Do you want to repeat the question, Paul?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
Q. Let’s start with the whole of paragraph 10(a). Based upon your experience, Mr. Wilson, what do you believe the intention of the parties in entering into and providing this paragraph 10(a) to be relating to, first of all, the language "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subdivision, the Contractor reserves the right to divert water from Stony Creek to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree, for periods not to exceed five consecutive days, whenever its Sacramento River pumps are temporarily unable to meet its diversion requirements because said pumps are partially

p. 42

or wholly inoperable due to an emergency or unforeseeable cause"?
MS. IIZUKA: I’m going to object, and just for the record, I think that Mr. Wilson’s declaration sets forth what his views are as to what GCID’s entitlements are under the Angle Decree. I think that answers that part of your question.
MR. MINASIAN: But I’m asking him as an expert, based upon his experience, what did the parties mean by this language, what did they intend?
MS. IIZUKA: He didn’t draft the contract.
MR. MINASIAN: Well, if you do not intend to have Mr. Wilson testify or execute a declaration relating to what they intended --
MS. IIZUKA: Mr. Wilson was set forth by us as an expert with regard to the Angle Decree. He is perfectly qualified to discuss and to testify as to what GCID’s rights and entitlements are under the Angle Decree. To the extent that you’re asking him to construe what the language of 10(a) means, I think that’s a different ball game.
MR. MINASIAN: And you’re not proposing Mr. Wilson to provide evidence on that subject, I gather?
MS. IIZUKA: He is perfectly qualified to tell you and to testify as to what the entitlements of GCID are under the Angle Decree as that term is used in section 10(a) of the water service contract.
MR. MINASIAN: But to do that, he has to express

p. 43

an opinion as to what the language was intended to refer to, doesn’t he?
MS. IIZUKA: Entitlements?
MR. NINASIAN: Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: Here are the entitlements. Can we read this into the record?
MR. MINASIAN: Sure.
MS. IIZUKA: Why don’t you read the declaration the record, George.
THE WITNESS: Okay. This is declaration of Water Master George G. Wilson.

"I, George G. Wilson, declare I am the Water Master administering the Angle Decree in the Stony Creek Water Shed. The rights of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has to the waters of Stony Creek under the Angle Decree are not unrestricted. The following are limitation on Glenn-Colusa’s rights as set forth in that decree: Period of diversion is March 15th to October 1. The rights are for direct diversion only, not for storage. The point of diversion is at the crossing of Glenn-Colusa main canal and Stony Creek. D, the maximum amount of Stony Creek water that Glenn-Colusa is entitled to divert in any year is 20,315 acre feet. The maximum rate of diversion is 500 cubic feet per second."

Pardon me right here.
MS. IIZUKA: Per day.
THE WITNESS: That’s an error.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s an error, okay.

p. 44

"Pursuant to this stipulation of the Angle Decree entered into between Glenn-Colusa and the United States, the United States is entitled to the first 265 cubic feet per second of flow from Stony Creek to either directly divert or to store for the Orland project.
"I have informed the Bureau of Reclamation that unless there is significant inflow to Black Butte Reservoir there is and will be no water available to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District from Stony Creek under the Angle Decree during the remainder of the current irrigation season.
"I declare under the penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief." Dated August 26th, ‘91.
MS. IIZUKA: Thank you, George.

Excuse me, I think there may have been another typo here.
MS. IIZUKA: This should be deleted?
THE WITNESS: This is 500 cubic feet per second, yes, period.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s a typo.
THE WITNESS: The diversion season, had here as October 1. Is that correct or is it October 30th?
MR. MINASIAN: October 30th.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s another typo.
THE WITNESS: So there’s another typo here.
MS. IIZUKA: Let’s get back to your questioning, Paul.

p. 45

MR. MINASIAN Q: So you don’t have independent opinion as an expert in regard to what was meant by this language of 10(a) relating to entitlements under the Angle Decree, other than to look at the Angle Decree, is that correct?
A. I think you’re asking me to interpret the contract --
Q. Right.
A. -- as Water Master.
Q. I’m asking you to look at the GCID-bureau contract and tell me if you have an expert opinion as to what they meant, right to divert water from Stony Creek, to the extent of its entitlement under the Angle Decree.
MS. IIZUKA: Entitlements.
MR. MINASIAN: Entitlements under the Angle Decree. I think you’re telling me you don’t have an opinion on that, but you do have an opinion as to what the Angle Decree says the district’s entitlements are?
MS. IIZUKA: Isn’t that the same question? Objection
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Is that -- it is correct; that is, that. you’re willing to offer an opinion on what the rights of -- what the phrase "to the extent of its entitlements under the Angle Decree" means by looking at the Angle Decree?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What do you think the extent of the

p. 46

district’s rights under the Angle Decree were at the time this contract was signed?
A. Again, I believe the declaration covers it, and if not, the Angle Decree would speak for itself, but, like I say, I think it’s the 500 CFS maximum and the 20,315 annual acre foot quantity.
MR. MINASIAN: Going to mark as Plaintiff’s 2 selected pages out of the Angle Decree.

(Whereupon Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)

MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, I’ll let you use this copy. It’s marked.

Mr. Wilson, do you recognize the document that you’ve been handed as a Xerox copy of selected pages of the Angle Decree?
A. Yes
Q. And you do have a copy of the original decree --
A. Yes
Q. -- available to you, so if you want to refer to any other pages, do not hesitate.

Page 1 is the face sheet on it showing it’s a United States District Court judgment?
A. Yes.
Q. And the next page in order is page 168, or the beginning of section Roman numeral 14.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize this language as describing the rights of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and the

p. 47

priority of those rights?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you see at the top, the priority was the 14th day of November, l904?
A. Yes
Q. Was that a relatively high priority; that is, Glenn-Coiusa Irrigation District was one of the earliest large users off of the creek?
A. It would depend on what you refer to as a large user. It’s a rather late date as a numerical date.
Q. But in terms of the quantities of water that Glenn-Colusa was entitled to under the decree, they were actually fairly large compared to the rights that were granted the Bureau of Reclamation for the Orland project?
MS IIZUKA: Wait a minute What are we talking -- you’re asking George to look at the Angle Decree, and if you’re asking specific questions, can you direct them to where in the Angle Decree you’re --
MR. MINASIAN: Sure
Q. Seventh line down, do you see the phrase 14th of November, 1904?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what is known as a priority date?
A. Yes.
Q. What does a priority date mean in regard to Glenn-Colusa’s rights?
A. That would indicate, as opposed to all other water rights in the system that were named in the Angle Decree,

p. 48

what their priority would be as far as receiving water.
Q. All right. And is the priority date of November, 1904 a relatively early priority date for the large users off Stony Creek?
A. I don’t know if I could -- would answer as fairly early, but I think the appropriation schedule in the Angle Decree shows all of the water rights with their priority dates so that we could --
Q. Maybe I could phrase it a different way

You know enough about the Angle Decree with your experience to know whether or not Glenn—Colusa had a good right to water from Stony Creek with this priority date. Would you describe it as a good water right9
A. As opposed to upstream diverters, no, because most all of the upstream diverters have earlier priority dates.
Q. But the upstream diverters tended to be relatively small diverters, did they not?
A. Yes.
Q. The big diverters on the stream were Glenn-Colusa and the Bureau of Reclamation for what’s known as the Orland project?
A. Yes.
Q. And Glenn-Colusa was ahead of the Orland project except for the stipulation which was entered into?
A. No. Orland project’s earlier right is 1864, which is a very small right, and again, the priority for the Orland project rights are in, I believe, Article 8 within

p. 49

the decree, and they have several rights, dated -- I think there’s several of them prior to 1904. Maybe not. 1864. But, anyway, they’re in this -- this is 1897. They had a 1888. They had several of them prior to Glenn-Colusa and some after, later than Glenn-Colusa’s.
Q. Is it correct that the East Park Dam and the Stony Gorge Dam were both built after 1904?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that although they utilize some of the water rights which the bureau might have filed on before 1904, that the rights to the East Park Dam and Stony Gorge Dam are generally later water rights than GCID’s?
A. Yes.
Q. And in California, under appropriative rights, the earlier rights have the priority over the later rights --
A. Yes.
Q. -- except if parties agree otherwise?
A. Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: Can I just say one thing, and this has been going on for awhile: If you’re asking a question, can you ask a question, because I have a sense that you’re sort of testifying here, Paul.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay.
Q. Now, the second thing I’d like to point out about this language, if you’d look, do you see about midway in the language, on page 169, "The irrigation season for the lands of said District is hereby defined as and adjudged

p. 50

to be the period beginning on March 15th and ending on October 1st of each year"?
A. It is October 1st.
Q. It is October.
MS. IIZUKA: I was right.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s okay. Go ahead. I’m sorry, Paul.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Do you see that's what we call the period of use or the season of use?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that to be March 15th through October 1st?
A. Yes.
Q. And the third line from the bottom, do you see the place of diversion, or point of diversion as being described "to divert from Stony Creek at the diversion point aforesaid"?
A. Yeah.
Q. What is the diversion point aforesaid?
A. I believe it’s referring to the diversion point for Glenn-Colusa from Stony Creek where at the point -- where Glenn-Colusa’s canal crosses Stony Creek.
Q. If you went back up that paragraph, do you see the court describing the place as a closing of the lower or easterly embankment of its main canal where it crosses Stony Creek?

p. 51

A. Yeah.
Q. So the point of diversion was where the main canal crosses Stony Creek, a gravel berm was put up and that’s the place at which the district diverted water?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, we go to page 170. Do you see we’re now defining the entitlement or the amount of water that the district can get, the second --
MS. IIZUKA: I want to correct something. Entitlements. Let’s be sure it's plural, all right? Let’s use the language. [the word entitlement or its plural does not appear in the Decree]
MR. MINASIAN Q: Do you see the language of the decree, "Said district for the irrigation thereof, 20,315 acre feet of water, or so much thereof as may be available at said point as above described, during each irrigation season, at the rate of diversion not exceeding 500 cubic feet per second at any time during said season"?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, where is the point as above described?
A. Point of diversion is the -- where the Glenn-Colusa canal crosses Stony Creek.
Q. And the quantity of water which the district is adjudged to have a right to?
A. 20,315 acre feet.
Q. And the rate of diversion is set?
A. 500 second feet.

p. 52

Q. Now, the rate of diversion in this case is measured at the district's main canal; is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the quantity of water, 20,315, is also measured at the main canal?
A. Yes.
Q. That means in order to get 20,315 at 500 cubic feet per second at the main canal, you’d have to have a larger amount of water coming down the creek to take care of creek losses, wouldn’t you?
A. In nearly all circumstances. It would be very rare it was a gaining stream rather than a losing stream in that area.
Q. Now, the decree goes on to refer to a stipulation between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District [no, between USA and GCID] that was put into this decree; does it not?
A. Yes. This is the stipulation between Glenn-Colusa and the Orland project. [No, between GCID & USA.]
Q. And based upon your experience in the creek, is it correct to the say that the purpose of this stipulation was to give the bureau [no, USA] the right to take the first 265 cubic feet per second of natural flow from the creek before Glenn-Colusa’s rights would be satisfied?
A. You’re asking me the bureau’s intent or thinking, and I can’t answer that. But I would say that this is what actually did happen, yes.
Q. That is, the stipulation, if we look at the top of

p. 53

page 172, we’d see that the Orland project was granted the right to divert 265 cubic feet per second of natural flow?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what is your understanding of what was to happen if the Orland project was not diverting 265 CFS of the natural flow?
A. Assuming that there was 265 available?
Q. Yes
A. That 265 would continue on down the creek and Glenn-Colusa would have access to it. [access, but not right?]
Q. And when you look at page 172, paragraph E, do you see that Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is recognized to have the right to the 265, or any portion of it not being utilized by the bureau? [where?]
A. Yes.
Q. So the amount of water that the Glenn-Coiusa Irrigation District was allocated by the Angle Decree was the amount of water up to 20,315 acre feet that was really available to it from natural flow?
A. Yeah, it was allocated if it was available, yes.
Q. Now, how would one go about determining the amount of water that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District was entitled to under the Angle Decree, from a practical matter, before Black Butte Reservoir was constructed?
A. Well, in answer to what you just said, you would read the Angle Decree and see what it says. Are you asking on each individual year?

p. 54

Q. Yes Let’s just take a given day in April, before Black Butte Reservoir was built.
A. It would be different in every year, probably.
Q. First thing you do is if the bureau was diverting 265 CFS, either directly into Orland project or into storage in one of its reservoirs, that would be okay, wouldn’t it.
A. Yeah.
Q. If every other water right holder was taking the water they were entitled to, then the remaining amount of water in the creek would be available to the Glenn—Colusa Irrigation District; would it not?
A. Under the stipulation, not under the other language in the decree

I believe maybe to clear this up, as I understand it, we’ve talked about two different classifications here of a right, and one, the -- eliminating the stipulation between the Orland project, I think that’s pretty clear, that Glenn-Colusa has 500 second feet, 20,315 acre feet. The stipulation, as I interpret it, is saying that, basically, after we get ours, you can have everything that’s there, if there is anything there.
Q. So, as you --
A. That’s putting it very broadly, but I think that’s what it is.
Q. So based upon your experience, you would treat the entitlement of the district, Glenn-Colusa, to be 20,315 at 500 cubic feet per second?

p. 55

MS. IIZUKA: Under the stipulation or under the decree?
THE WITNESS: Under the decree.
MS. IIZUKA: Right.
MR. MINASIAN Q: As you see it then, the stipulation between the bureau and Glenn-Colusa was -- is not what we refer to as the entitlement under the Angle Decree?
A. It’s different.
Q. Different. All right. Now, I’d like you to finally look at page 175.
MS. IIZUKA: Could I make one clarification for the record?
MR. NINASIAN: Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: Do you consider the stipulation to be part of the Angle Decree?
MR. MINASIAN: I’d certainly stipulate that it is, but --
MS. IIZUKA: I’m asking -- well, if you do, okay.
THE WITNESS: I do.
MS. IIZUKA: Fine. That’s it. All right. Please go on. I’m sorry. 175?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes. Which is the final page of our Exhibit 2.

Q. Look down at the bottom. There’s some underlying language. Do you see the phrase "That any of the parties to whom rights to water have been decreed herein shall be entitled, in accord with applicable laws and legal

p. 56

principles, to change the point of diversion and the places, means, manner or purpose of use of the waters to which they are so entitled or any part thereof, so far as they may do so without injury to the rights of other parties as the same are defined herein"?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this language is part of the Angle Decree. In your years working in the water rights field, did you become aware at any time of a provision that relates to pre-1914 water rights, as to the changes of the purpose of use, the right to store those waters, the right to change the place of use?
A. For pre-1914?
Q. 1914.
A. The only thing that comes to mind would be that, as I understood it, the courts, and I may not be right on this, rather than the State Water Resources Control Board, had jurisdiction over that.
Q. All right. Do you see the court in this case saying that parties who have the rights to water under this decree can change the places, means, manner or purpose of the use of the water so far as they may do so without injury to the rights of other parties?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any understanding what the court -- what was intended by this language?
A. In this particular case, and I’m referring to the Angle Decree on Stony Creek, there are instances where

p. 57

one individual’s field may be washed out and be nothing but river bed and might have two or three acres of water right and it may create actually a sand bar over here which was not in his original water right, and this has happened, and in that case, they could go before the court and petition the court for a change in place of use. [but they are not required to?]
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this language was intended to permit somebody to store their water, as long as it didn’t harm anybody else?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. Where is the word "store" in here. It says, "Change the" --a
MR. MINASIAN: He either has an opinion or he doesn’t.
THE WITNESS: No, my opinion is that this does not permit storage. But this is only an opinion, because I have never -- I’ve never seen anyone request storage and any requests for application permit to storage is -- well, has never arisen on Stony Creek under the Angle Decree. And they’re very specific that it is direct diversion. [are they? isn't reasonable and beneficial change the only limitation?]
MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, if the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s rights to water under the Angle Decree were stored in Black Butte Reservoir, would that cause harm to any other party under the Angle Decree?
MS. IIZUKA: Can you -- Black Butte’s water rights under the Angle Decree were stored in Black Butte?
MR. MINASIAN: No. If Glenn-Colusa Irrigation

p. 58

District’s rights under the Angle Decree were stored in Black Butte Reservoir, would that cause harm --
MS. IIZUKA: There’s a presumption there that the rights under the Angle Decree are storage rights.
MR. MINASIAN: No. I’m just asking a factual question to him as Water Master.
MS. IIZUKA: Well, I’m going to object only to the extent that it’s contrary to the decree [how would she know?]. You can answer, George, but I don’t think it’s --
THE WITNESS: To answer that, when you say anyone, there are times when it would be detrimental to other people, other entities, not necessarily people with water rights. I’m thinking primarily as Glenn-Colusa’s water rights go down the creek, as you know, they percolate into Stony Creek and keep the wells in the community up, so that is one instance I can think of where it could cause harm. But, again, those people have no water rights.

Maybe you’re not asking me this, but I will add that to store Glenn-Colusa’s -- or to determine what Glenn-Colusa’s water rights would be that would be available to store each year would be a tremendous undertaking, because they would vary from day to day. In other words, you can’t just quantify and say 20,000 acre feet they’re entitled to, so they can store 20,000. [uh, try computers]

Am I answering your question there, Paul?
MR. MINASIAN: Well, I think you’re giving your opinion on this.

p. 59

THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, there were two parts to the opinion. First of all, you wondered if it would harm anybody who had a right to ground water percolation in the creek.
A. Yes.
Q. Would you look again at page 175, and do you see the last two lines of the court’s decision, saying they may do so without injury to the rights of other parties as the same are defined herein?
A. Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: Who are the other parties?
MR. MINASIAN: That’s my question.
Q. You recognize, Mr. Wilson, the other parties defined herein are the holders of rights to surface water under the Angle --
A. Within the Angle Decree, yes.
Q. In other words, there’s nobody downstream of the Black Butte -- present location of Black Butte Reservoir who holds a right to ground water --
A. No.
Q. -- percolation under the Angle Decree?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Is there anybody downstream of Black Butte who holds surface water right?
A. None that are current. [define current?]
Q. So if Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s entitlement or right under the Angle Decree were stored

p. 60

in Black Butte, no person or party, as the same is defined herein, would be harmed by that?
MS. IIZUKA: George, again, I’m going to object because, again, there’s an underlying assumption in your question that there’s an entitlement under the Angle Decree to have GCID’s waters stored in Black Butte and I’m going to object because that isn’t what the Angle Decree provides.

If you want to ask a hypothetical question which is not grounded in the Angle Decree, that’s a different question. [and there's an underlying assumption in her objection that there's anything in the Angle Decree that prohibits storage, which, of course, there isn't]
MR. MINASIAN: Well, I’m asking George. for his opinion as to what this language means. We’ve covered one part of it.
MS. IIZUKA: You can’t take -- you know, you can’t take a piece of a decree out of context. It has to relate to what was given GCID and the other water users.
MR. MINASIAN: And Mr. Wilson can qualify his opinion.
MS. IIZUKA: Well, my objection is noted for the record.
MR. MINASIAN: All right.
Q. Mr. Wilson, so we have a clear record here, I want to give you time to think about this. Can you think of any harm or injury that would be caused to the rights of other parties as the same is defined herein, which is the language the court uses on page 175, which would occur from storing and releasing at a later time Glenn-Colusa

p. 61

Irrigation District’s Angle Decree entitlement in Black Butte?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. This only talks about changing points of diversion [no, it's about "...change point of diversion and the places, means, manner or purpose of the use of the waters to which they are so entitled....] , Paul. It doesn’t talk about storage. And if you take -- you’re asking Mr. Wilson to assume two things: That points of diversion equals or can equal storage, and two, that under the Angle Decree, GCID has storage rights in Black Butte, neither one of which is correct. So I’m noting my objections for the record. You’re asking him to say something that isn’t spelled out here.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay. You’ve made your objections.
Q. Now, George, do you understand the question?
A. Yeah, I understand the question, and it is probably one of these things that answers itself again. Since Black Butte has been built, it’s been storing water, some of that water possibly Glenn-Colusa could have been entitled to under their Angle Decree to divert on down the stream.

In storing this water, there was no separation between Angle Decree water, bureau’s water, anybody’s water. It is all under the Black Butte, Bureau of Reclamation permit, so in a sense, there’d be no change from what there is right now.
Q. So what’s been going on since Black Butte started its operation is proof that there’s no harm to anybody?
A. I wouldn’t say it’s proof, because, as I understgand your question, you may lead to a claim of

p. 62

Glenn-Colusa on this water at a later date, as Glenn-Colusa as opposed to bureau water. Maybe I’m getting too far afield here. But in that case, I could see where the Bureau of Reclamation could lose control of this water, and to that extent, it may possibly cause some harm to someone, either the recreation, the fishery, or -- I just don’t know, Paul. I can’t give a good answer to that.
MS. IIZUKA: For the record, are you saying that there could be harm to the Bureau of Reclamation’s permit rights, in a broad sense?
THE WITNESS: Definitely, if the water were allocated to Glenn-Colusa, because that -- if nothing else, it would reduce this block of storage under the rights that the bureau has in certain years. Some years it wouldn’t hurt a thing.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Okay. Let me direct your attention to the last lines on page 175. Do you see the phrase, "without injury to the rights of other parties as the same are defined herein"?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any question in your mind that the other parties defined herein are the holders of rights under the Angle Decree?
A. Yes, I agree with you on that.
Q. They are, that’s who the court is referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree that Black Butte Reservoir is not

p. 63

exercising an Angle Decree right; that is, the bureau’s rights to Black Butte are post 1914 water rights that arise from a source other than the Angle Decree?
A. Yes, they’re not Angle Decree.
Q. So you’ve told us that you thought that there could be some confusion if Glenn-Colusa’s Angle Decree water rights were actually being stored in Black Butte?
A. And probably some detriment to even possibly some of these people, and this -- this is --
Q. Explain to me how there could be detriment to somebody who held a right under the Angle Decree by Glenn-Colusa’s entitlements being stored in Black Butte Reservoir.
A. Okay. To answer your question, this would be injury to someone who held an Angle Decree water right. I’m not saying it would deplete their water right, but, for instance, we have Stony Creek Water District upstream of Stony Gorge who rely on Black Butte water by exchange under their contract.
Q. But that’s not an Angle Decree right that they hold, is it?
A. Yes, they have Angle Decree water rights, and the Black Butte water makes their Angle Decree water rights whole when there’s physically -- when they’re physically limited. [no, that's a contract right, er, privilege, and outside the Decree]
Q. That is, they buy water from the bureau?
A. Supplement, yes.
Q. I want to direct your attention to what the court

p. 64

was referring to in 1930, when this decree was entered into. That contractual purchase agreement didn’t exist at that time, did it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So can you think of anybody that held an Angle Decree right that existed at the time of this decree who would be harmed by Glenn-Colusa storing its water and releasing it at a later time down --
A. In 1930, I would say there wouldn’t have been any harm.
Q. Today would there be any harm other than the Stony Creek irrigation --
A. I don’t know. This is just one example that comes to the top of my mind right now, and I would hate to say there would not be, because I would --
MS. IIZUKA: I’m going to stop this. I think the question has been asked about 3,000 million ways, and I think that George has given the best answer he could, and, you know, I think we should leave it at that.
MR. MINASIAN: Let’s take a break.
(Whereupon a recess was taken.)
(Whereupon Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3 and 4 were marked for identification.)
MR. MINASIAN Q: Now, Mr. Wilson, during the break we have handed you two documents. Exhibit 3 is a copy of the Bureau of Reclamation’s application and permit granted pursuant to that application for Black Butte Reservoir.

p. 65

Do you recognize those documents?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any involvement in the processing of those documents?
A. I don’t believe so, no.
Q. During your career with the bureau, did you become acquainted with the limitations upon the season of diversion to storage that the bureau was granted in regard to the Black Butte Reservoir?
A. To the extent that it’s specified in the permit, yeah.
Q. And do you recognize that it’s no -- that no storage is permitted after April 30th of water?
A. Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: What are rereferring to, Paul, for the record?
MR. MINASIAN: Thank you
Q. Exhibit 3, and we’re looking at permit terms, and we’re looking at paragraph 1 and we’re looking at paragraph 12.
MS. IIZUKA: Just for the record, I’d like to clarify that permit -- paragraph 12 says during the period from about May 1, it doesn’t say May l, to about October 31.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay.
Q. Now, do you recognize those terms as limitations upon the bureau’s ability to store water in Black Butte Reservoir?

p. 66

A. Yes
Q. Now, prior to the -- can you see the date on that permit? It’s down here.
A. November 19, 1962.
Q. So before the contract between the bureau and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the bureau had obtained this right for Black Butte Reservoir from the State Water Resources Control Board; had it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a recollection of any discussions with bureau personnel about the need of the bureau to get the right to store water from on or about April 30th through the summer months at Black Butte Reservoir?
A. Attempt to store water during the summer months?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t remember any details. I believe that possibly, as in most applications, they are generally filed in an attempt to extend the season as long as they can, and the same way with the quantities, usually have a larger quantity, noting that they can always be reduced and they cannot be expanded. And only to that extent would I vaguely remember anything about a season longer than they were given in the permit.
Q. Do you have a recollection today, after working as the Water Master on the creek, that the bureau is prohibited from storing waters under its rights in Black Butte Reservoir after about May 1?
A. I think the permit speaks for itself on that.

p. 67

Q. All right. Now, in fact, the bureau does store water after May 1 in normal or above normal water years in Black Butte Reservoir, does it not?
A. I think it has in the past, but whether or not it’s storing it under this permit is something that I don’t know.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not they’re storing it under Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s water rights?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection.
MR. NINASIAN Q: Do you know?
A. No, I don’t know.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s assuming that there are such a thing as -- kind of fungible item that you’re talking about here and I object to that characterization.
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to continue to answer that?
MR MINASIAN Q. Yes. It’s an objection for the record.
A. I don’t believe any Angle Decree water right as such can be stored in Black Butte at this time. [? not even by Reclamation? Hmmm.]
Q. What is the basis for that opinion?
A. Because there’s never been an Angle Decree water right for storage in Black Butte.
Q. And your view is that the rights granted and the language of the Angle Decree do not authorize Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to permit its water to be stored in Black Butte Reservoir?
A. That’s correct.

p. 68

Q. Now, are there any other documents or facts, other than you’ve told us about today, which leads you to that conclusion?
A. I think the Angle Decree is the basis for my opinion that you can’t store GCID water under their Angle Decree water right in Black Butte [any particular language?].
Q. Okay. Ever have any discussion with anybody about what the five-day period meant?
A. Yes.
Q. And who did you discuss that with?
A. Most everybody I’ve talked to recently.
Q. Just recently, since this matter started?
A. Yes.
Q. How about before?
A. No.
Q. What do you think the phrase, if you have an opinion, emergency or unforeseeable condition --
MS. IIZUKA: Objection, for the record. The document speaks for itself. However, George, you can express an opinion.
THE WITNESS: Just what I read in the contract.
MR. MINASIAN Q: So you don’t have an opinion different?
A. Nothing different than that, no.
Q. Now, in the course of your employment with the Bureau of Reclamation, did you have occasion to talk with bureau representatives about the problems caused by the state board’s permit conditions relating to Black Butte

p. 69

Reservoir?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. You’re characterizing it as problems, but go ahead, George.
THE WITNESS: Repeat that, would you please?
MR. MINASIAN Q: During the course of your career at the Bureau of Reclamation, did you become aware that the State Water Resources Control Board had put certain limitations upon the bureau’s use of water from Black Butte Reservoir?
A. Aware of the limitations? Yeah, they’re spelled out in the permit.
Q. Did you have occasion to talk with other persons at the bureau about those limitations?
A. Not as a problem. I have talked about -- if anything, it would have been a diversion point.
Q. And what do you remember about the diversion point issue relating to the Black Butte water?
A. As I remember, there was some uncertainty as to where the Black Butte water diversion points were located.
Q. Do you recollect discussions with persons at the bureau about the fact that the only way to get water from Black Butte Reservoir to the bureau’s customers was to run it down Stony Creek?
A. The CVP customers, I guess you’re using?
Q. Yes.
A. With the exception of running some of it down the Orland project canals into Tehama-Colusa canal.

p. 70

Q. That’s been done recently, has it not?
A. Yes, within the last few years
Q. Historically, between the time the contract was entered into between the bureau and GCID, the CVP service area was generally served out of the Sacramento area [Sacramento River??], was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any discussions with personnel from the bureau about how they were going to get water from Black Butte past or over the GCID gravel dam that performed its canal?
A. Probably many times I talked with people that were not aware that Glenn-Colusa had a solid dam in there, and ‘to that extent discussed with them there’s no way you could physically release that water down there after Glenn-Colusa’s dam is in, release it to Sacramento River. So only CVP customers would be through the Tehama-Colusa canal or GCID itself, under their contract.
Q. So is it your opinion, based on your experience, at the time the bureau signed the agreement with GCID, that the bureau was gaining the ability to deliver Black Butte water to GCID through Stony Creek and would not have the problem of getting that water through GCID’s dam into the Sacramento River?
MS. IIZUKA: I don’t understand that question.
THE WITNESS: I think I -- I think what you’re asking, was it advantageous to the bureau to be able to deliver some of that water to GCID?

p. 71

MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: From?
THE WITNESS: From Black Butte And I think that’s pretty obvious, that at times was to their advantage. And they have done that sometimes when -- this is, as I recollect, at times Glenn-Colusa asked for water and if the bureau had it available and no objections to releasing it, they did, which was an advantage to the bureau.
MR MINASIAN Q: Now, when the contract was entered into between Glenn-Colusa and the bureau in 1964, the bureau knew that Black Butte Reservoir was going to be completed at that time, did it not?
A. In ‘64? Yes. They did not know whether it was is going to be CVP. It was not integrated in the Central Valley Project at that time.
Q. So the bureau, at the time of the agreement with GCID, knew they had a dam that was going to store water on Stony Creek?
A. Yes.
Q. And they knew Glenn-Colusa had a gravel dam across the creek which would prevent water from getting in the Sacramento River?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it your opinion that therefore there was an advantage to the bureau in having a right to deliver Black Butte water to GCID down Stony Creek?
MS. IIZUKA: Hasn’t George -- I think the question

p. 72

has been asked and answered.
MR. MINASIAN: Well, I want to make sure that I get the record clear here
THE WITNESS: I would have to assume that they would know there would be an advantage at that time to be able to divert some of it into Glenn-Colusa’s canal, and at the same time, there were, as I recollect, there were plans and specifications drawn up, or at least feasibility studies, for putting Glenn-Colusa’s canal under Stony Creek. And I think in the feasibility studies that that provision was in there so that they did not forever expect to only be able to divert water into Glenn-Colusa.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Would the advantage to the bureau be, at the time of the ‘64 contract with GCID, that the bureau could deliver water from Black Butte down Stony Creek and the bureau would thereby not have to release water down the Sacramento River for the district to pump at its Hamilton City pumping plant?
A. Yes.
Q. So the bureau got more flexibility as a result of Black Butte Reservoir and the terms of the ‘64 contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in return for that flexibility, do you know of any documents or instruments which state that the bureau intended not to recognize the right of the district to get water down Stony Creek when it had an emergency at its pumping plant?

p. 73

A. I don’t know of any such document.
Q. Do you know of any documents which would indicate that the bureau intended if the emergency occurred in August or September to -- that the contract would not obligate it to deliver water from Black Butte?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. You’re asking George to construe section 10(a). We’ve been through 10(a), 10(a) speaks for itself, and I don’t think we have to get -- you know, regurgitate that.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Do you know of any documents relative to that subject?
A. No.
Q. Now, the place of use of water from Black Butte Reservoir, do you have any recollection or experience with what the place of use of the water from Black Butte Reservoir was?
A. Only to the extent that it’s spelled out in the permits from the applications from the State Water Resource Control Board. And decision 1100.
Q. And do you remember what the place of use of the water was?
A. Lord, no. You’re going clear down the San Joaquin Valley.
Q. That is, it’s your impression that the place of use of the water under the Black Butte Reservoir rights included all of the CVP service area?
A. I couldn’t say for sure, but the permits and decision are specific on that.

p. 74

Q. Would you please look at Exhibit 4. This is the answer of the bureau to the protest of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. Do you see on line 26 through line 32 the bureau response and description of the rights of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District?
A. Are you on page 2?
Q. Yes. Bottom of page 1 and top of page 2.
A. Oh.
Q. My question to you, Mr. Wilson, is, this document appears to have been filed by the Bureau of Reclamation July 11th, 1961, as an answer to the protest of GCID relating to the Black Butte project. Do you agree with the description of the rights of the district which are contained in lines 25 through 32 on page 1 and lines 1 through 13 on page 2?
MS. IIZUKA: Isn’t it -- just for the record, there seem to be quotation marks around it. Doesn’t it appear to be a direct quotation from the Angle Decree?
MR. MINASIAN: It does.
THE WITNESS: I agree with this.
MR. MINASIAN Q: And there’s no reference to the stipulation --
A. No.
Q. -- is there?
A. No.
Q. So does this further confirm your opinion that the stipulation between the bureau and GCID is really not a description of the entitlements of the district under the

p. 75

Angle Decree but instead it’s the 20,315 at 500 CFS that describes the district’s entitlement?
A. You spoke of the stipulation.
Q. Yeah.
A. This language is not in the stipulation.
Q. That’s right.
A. Ask that same question.
Q. Okay. When someone refers to the Angle Decree entitlements, you’ve previously, I believe, given me the opinion that what they should be referring to is the entitlement of the district to 20,315 acre feet at 500 CFS.
A. Yes.
Q. And that the -- although the Angle Decree includes a stipulation between the bureau and the GCID, that that really isn’t what’s meant, that stipulation is not the entitlement of the district?
A. That is -- the stipulation is only, it is my interpretation, as between the Orland project [actually, USA] and Glenn-Colusa and not between any of the other holders of Angle Decree water rights. Or any other entity that comes in at a later date.
Q. Now, in determining what is meant by the phrase entitlements under the Angle Decree, does this answer of the United States confirm your opinion and understanding that it’s the 20,315 at 500 CFS, measured at the main canal of GCID?
A. That would be their maximum entitlement for the

p. 76

year, assuming that the water, of course, is there, as in any other water right.
Q. So do you have any information or materials which would indicate that the bureau, at the time it entered into the contract with GCID, was interested in anything other than the figure 20,315 diverted at 500 CFS at the main canal of the district?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Are you asking as the maximum water entitlement?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s a different question than what the bureau had in mind when it entered into the water service contract. Why don’t you ask the question -- that question, not the question of the contract. I don’t think George can answer -- is qualified to answer what was in the bureau’s mind.
MR. MINASIAN: All right.
Q. George, do you have an opinion as to what the language in the contract between GCID and the bureau means when it refers to the district’s entitlements under the Angle Decree?
A. Yes. It is not -- well, now, this is what -- I may have to take awhile to explain this.

The quantity that the bureau determined for the purpose of the contract was not the total water right entitlement under the Angle Decree, but was a number that the parties had agreed on as an average annual yield.

p. 77

Does that answer your question?
Q. And, therefore, what was meant was the average annual yield of the district’s rights under the Angle Decree was to be a certain number of acre feet?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you think that number of acre feet is?
A. I doubt if you want to know. In fact, I have --
Q. Wait a minute. I guess what need to know from you is, do you have an opinion as to what the figure 20,315 acre feet means in terms of the entitlements of the district?
A. Not as mentioned in the contract. Under the Angle Decree, it means that they’re entitled to divert 20,315 acre feet each year, at the 500 CFS rate, assuming the water was available, yes.
Q. Now, you were about to tell me what you thought the actual yield had Black Butte Reservoir not been built that GCID diverted from [to?] its main canal; were you not?
A. Rather than what the annual yield was, I was inclined to say a number that they had agreed on, whether it was the actual yield or not. And if I get into this, this is strictly on memory, I don’t have any numbers to back it up, and this number went into the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s base supply or free water and was lost in that group and treated the same as any other base supply from the free water, and it’s my recollection that that was the number 15,000. Now, I’ve seen other people

p. 78

refer to different numbers slightly higher. And in the transcript of the hearings, the -- both parties discussed numbers.
Q. Right.
MS. IIZUKA: The hearings before the --
THE WITNESS: The hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board. If I remember right, there’s a number GCID kicked around of 16,000, something like that.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Those were figures that were given in the Black Butte water rights hearings?
A. Right.
Q. Before the State Water Resources Control Board?
A. Again, as I mentioned earlier, in negotiating these contracts, as you’re well aware of, there would be computations to determine quantities and then those computations were often negotiated around and up or down or whatever prior to the settlement.
Q. Okay. Is there any document or fact that you’re aware of that would indicate to you that the bureau intended a limitation upon the right of the district to get water in an emergency from Stony Creek?
A. I don’t know of any.
Q. Do you know of any document or fact which would indicate that the bureau intended to actually measure the amount of natural flow available in Stony Creek, as if Black Butte Reservoir didn’t exist, if the district called for an emergency condition in a given August?
A. I don’t know.

p. 79

MS. IIZUKA: In any August?
MR. M1NASIAN: In any August.
MS. IIZUKA: You limit it to that?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes. Because it’s a dry month.
MS. IIZUKA: That’s where I’m objecting then. If you’re defining emergency to mean that the bureau -- that the district is running low on water supply versus inoperable pump, then I’m going to object to your characterization of emergency.
MR. MINASIAN: Okay. Then let me try to rephrase it.
Q. Do you know of any fact or document that, would indicate that the bureau intended to restrict the application of the 10(a) provisions to periods of time in which there was a physical breakdown rather than a shortage of water for some other reason to the district?
A. Now, you’re asking if I know of any document?
Q. Yes, or fact.
A. No, I don’t know of any document.
Q. Any other fact or information you’ve been asked to gather for the bureau for this proceeding?
A. I can’t think of any other than just the water rights.
Q. In your position as Water Master, you have become acquainted with the operations of Black Butte Reservoir in the last five, 10 years; have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’re aware there’s a flood control curve on

p. 80

that reservoir?
A. Yes.
O. You’re aware that that curve requires that the bureau start to decrease water storage within the reservoir in the latter part of the summer?
A. Yes.
Q. And I’ve used the bureau loosely there. Actually, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers?
A. The Corps of Engineers is operating, yes.
Q. Do you have any idea whether that flood control curve was known to the bureau at the time of the agreement with GCID?
A. It may have been modified since then, but I’m sure they were well aware of a flood control curve as such, yes.
Q. So at the time of the water rights contract between GCID and the bureau, the bureau knew that there would be a relatively unusual requirement that storage in Black Butte be drawn down to be prepared for floods early in August arid September of each year?
A. I don’t know the exact dates, but there would be a curve when they would be --
MS. IIZUKA: That’s in wet -- we’re talking about -- I want -- wet years now?
MR. MINASIAN: Every year.
MS. IIZUKA: Every year?
MR. MINASIAN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: As I understand it, the criteria for

p. 81

the draw down period and quantity is, to a certain extent, a variable, and that is regulated by the Corps of Engineers, depending on the upstream. So it’s not a locked in positive, but it is there.
MR. MINASIAN Q: Do you recollect that the curve on the Black Butte Reservoir actually requires that they reach a flood control minimum pool by a certain date?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that curve starts at an earlier date on Black Butte than it does on Shasta; does it not?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Presently, if -- take 1992 as an example. You’re aware, roughly, of the amounts of water that are stored in Black Butte Reservoir?
A. Vaguely, yeah. I don’t watch them closely.
Q. If those waters aren’t delivered to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District down Stony Creek, what else can be done with those waters before September 1 of ‘92?
A. I believe with the quantities of water that are in there now, and I’m not sure they would have to be out by September 1, but assuming that they were, there would 7 have to be some provision for going around GCID stamp [dam?], some of them to a certain extent could be put into Tehama-Colusa canal, but it would be a small quantity.
Q. So generally if you wanted to get water out of Black Butte Reservoir to meet the flood control requirements, you need to deliver to GCID?
A. Either that or to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation

p. 82

District I think -- is that your understanding?
MS. IIZUKA: Yes. There were other alternatives.
THE WITNESS: There are some minor alternatives, such as delivering some to the Tehama-Colusa canal, but for the major part it would have to go over or under Glenn-Colusa’s dam, and there’s no physical provision for that at this time.
MR. MINASIAN: So when the parties signed the contract between GCID and the bureau in 1964, the bureau acquired the right to deliver water down Stony Creek and get credit for it, so that the district’s water stayed in the Sacramento River; is that correct?
A. Would you ask that again?
Q. Was one of the things that the bureau got in the 1964 agreement with GCID the right to deliver Black Butte stored water to GCID down Stony Creek?
A. In lieu of Sacramento River water?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And was that of value to the bureau?
A. I think so.
MS. IIZUKA: I think this has been asked and answered.
MR. MINASIAN: Yes. This is conclusionary.
Q. At the time that the contract was entered into, do you have any fact or document to indicate to you that the bureau intended to restrict the amount of water that the district could get in an emergency to the amount of water

p. 83

that was available on that day from natural flow in Stony Creek?
A. I have not seen any documents of that type.
Q. From your experience in an operational capacity, with the bureau and with the water projects of the bureau, does it make -- is it consistent with the way water projects are run to say to someone, I’ll help you in an emergency room [?], but only to the extent that there’s natural flow in a creek such as Stony Creek?
A. I don’t believe I can answer that any better than the man on the street.
Q. Is it any easier to answer when the bureau knows that it’s going to build Black Butte Reservoir on the day the contract is entered into with GCID?
MS. IIZUKA: This is such a hypothetical question.
MR. MINASIAN: Yeah, it is hypothetical.
MS. IIZUKA: I don’t know that George -- I’m going to object. You know, he’s here to answer very specific questions.
MR. MINASIAN: If you can’t answer it, George, that’s fine.
THE WITNESS: If -- maybe this would be an answer, and again, this is my opinion, that the bureau obviously would provide water to Glenn-Colusa or any other contractor when it would be beneficial to them in an emergency if they can without detriment to somebody else. This would be just my interpretation of the bureau’s policy.

p. 84

MR. MINASIAN Q: And that was the way people thought about the bureau back in 1964, wasn’t it?
A. I’d like to think so. I was working for them there, yes.
Q. That is, that the bureau would not be arbitrary and basically would help out in an emergency or in an unforeseen condition?
A. I think so. We had a good reputation.
Q. So when the contract doesn’t include language which says that the bureau isn’t required to help out unless there was natural flow in Stony Creek on the day of the emergency, does that strike you as contrary to the way the bureau acted at that time?
MS. IIZUKA: Objection. Objection. Don’t answer, George.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. MINASIAN: That concludes the deposition.
(The deposition concluded at 3:25 p.m.)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2025(q)(l) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, I hereby certfify that I have read my deposition, made those changes and corrections I deem necessary, and approve the same as now written.

Dated this ______ day of ______ ___, 1992.


[unsigned]
__________________________
GEORGE C. WILSON

p. 85

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
--oOo--
State of California )
County of Placer ) ss.

I, MICHAEL J. LeROY, CSR, RPR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of California, duly licensed, and a disinterested person, certify

That the foregoing deposition was taken before me pursuant to applicable sections of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California at the time and place herein set forth,

That GEORGE G. WILSON, the deponent herein, was put under oath by me;

That the testimony of the witness and all objections made at the time of the e amination [sic] were recorded stenographically by me, to the best of my ability, and were thereafter transcribed,

That the foregoing deposition is a verbatim record of the testimony of the deponent and all objections made at the time of examination.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name this 26th day of May, 1992.


/s/ [illegible]
__________________________________
MICHAEL J. LeROY, CSR #8023

[of course the certificate applies to the reporters transcript, not to this retranscription]

SANDRA N. BUNCH & ASSOCIATES 969-4012 86

p. 86



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

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