THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2010, Mike Barkley (06/18/2010)

Comprehensive, Chronological INDEX of the case

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. H.C. ANGLE, et al.,
United States District Court, Eastern District (was Northern District) of California, Sacramento Division, EQ-30, later CVS-80-583

This list is in 12 sections:

Introductory comments on organization of this index

1. EQUITY DOCKET BOOKS, 1917-1938 [1960?], at FRC/Archives, San Bruno:
2. ORDER BOOK IN EQUITY - not yet found
3. EQUITY JOURNAL - not yet found
4. MINUTE BOOK - not yet found

5. 1918 - 1930 PAPERS - boxes
6. 1918 - 1930 EXHIBITS - boxes
7. 1918 - 1930 TRANSCRIPTS - boxes
8. 1930 - 1980 - boxes
9. 1980 - 2000, 2000-2005 Filings 1 - 252, 254-263 in 10 folders and one expanding file
10. 2000, 2005 - 2010 Filings 253, 264 - 316 On-line storage (and Vol. 10 in paper to #263)

11. 1991 - 1993, Comprehensive, Chronological INDEX of the Court of Appeals case (arbitrarily inserted before Doc #227 )

I built this index on-site at the U.S. District Court in Sacramento , Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and the National Archives in San Bruno, between 02/25/09 and 02/06/10. I used a laptop with which I was as yet unfamiliar and new editions of software with unexpected "improvements". While I have made every effort to ensure perfection, occasionally the keyboard and utilities I used produced unintended results and while I have made every effort to backtrack and catch those surprises, a line or two may have inadvertently disappeared. So, just because I haven't listed it here does not mean it doesn't exist. I would be happy to furnish a declaration supporting all this if needed.

Where there are existing lists within the archive of one sort or another, such as the docket list in the expanding file or the online CM/ECF docket, I have attempted to scan it in or copy it in and preserve it modifying it only where I wanted clearer document titles and searchable content.

I have copies where indicated; the copies I purchased in 1976 in San Bruno are good. Because of the very poor quality of the self-service photocopiers in the Court Clerk's lobby, the more recent copies are inferior and hinder OCR scanning

There are also missing exhibits where I have left gaps, and maybe missing transcripts, marked in upper case MISSING. There seems to be a large gap in filings between 1970 and 1980. In the boxes of Angle filings there are also filings from other cases which would be expected in any serial archiving, but in this instance the only writing on the outside of the boxes is "EQ30" and box number, with no writing as to the other cases so I don't know how the archive people could possibly find those cases - it appears somone replaced the boxes, thus losing the Archives' "Accession" numbers. Of course, if it is possible for other cases to be intermingled with EQ30, it might also be possible for EQ30 material to be misfiled with other cases.

NON-ANGLE MATERIAL MIXED IN WITH THE ANGLE MATERIAL:

Box 3:
112360 Special Report (2 copies)
103160 William P. Hutchison & Co. CPAs,
  • Baxter Creek Irrigation District, Tule Irrigation District
  • In the matter of Tule Irrigation District, Bankrupt No. 10749
  • In the matter of Baxter Creek Irrigation District, Bankrupt No. 10750 B3 12M/12M 136 [doc #'s?], B3 11M/12M 92 93 137 [doc #'s?], B3 10M/12M
    - file marked "Baxter Creek Exhibits" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 21 16 17 18 25 26 27 28 29 31 51 32
    - two files marked Equity 30 #1 & #2, but not Angle;
    - - #1, Baxter ID: docs marked 5 through 95
    - - #2, Baxter ID: docs 96 - 138
    - file marked "Tule Exhibits" [with some Angle mixed in] Docs Red 1-32, blue 3 4 6-8 13 18-20 23 28 29 39 42-44 47

    Extensive files 1945 - 1961 Baxter Creek Irrigation District, Susanville, Lassen County, CA Bankrupt, USDC Northern District of California File No. 10750

    Box 4:
    Misfiled:
  • b4 15/39 continuace, EQ 31 (Marysville Dredging)

    Box 6:
    Extensive files 1945 - 1968 :
  • 10749 Tule Irrigation District Bankrupt, and
  • 10750 Baxter Creek Irrigation District, Bankrupt
    Bonds, Paradise Irrigation District, Cancelled 12/08/1949 Light Manila Envelope

    SUMMARY OF BOXES:

    Box 1
  • transcripts
  • handwritten list of filings

    Box 2
  • decree book
  • corrected decree, "Frank H. Kerrigan, Judge" printed, date "Done in Open Court, this 13th day of 01/1930" also printed; when he signed the order the Decree was not yet printed? - per front desk clerk, phoned Judge's clerk 03/25/2009, Judge has a copy of this one, not a signed one
  • transcripts

    Box 3
  • Tule & Baxter Creek Irrigation Districts Case #10749
  • transcripts

    Box 4
  • filings

    Box 5
  • filings

    Box 6
  • later correspondence
  • Tule, Baxter Creek, Paradise Irrigation Districts Case #10749
  • Dog-eared copy of Angle Decree, corrected version, missing many pages, b6 A1M/12M
  • [A1M, B1M, 2M, 4M, & 6M are present; 10M, 11M & 12M are Baxter ID or Tule ID - Does "M" stand for water master files, are files 3,5, 7,8,9 MISSING? are they archived differently?]
    - - - - 
      Records Retrieval list on front of Expanding File:

       
Files     Docs

  Ex001 - 89 - 90, 84, 12 page list of filings from 1980 on (Docket,
        Proceedings, Docket continuation sheet); [actually Docs 66 & 67,
        plus 147]
  1	1 - 50
  2	51 - 69
  3	70 - 71
  4	72 - 103
  5	104 - 126
  6	127 - 140
  7	141 - 155
  8	156 - 172
  9	173 - 226
  10	227 - 263

    1. EQUITY DOCKET BOOKS, 1917-1938 [1960?], at FRC / Archives, San Bruno:

    Case #1 is 04/09/1917, before that is San Francisco Docket Book?
    Last equity case filed 09/02/1938
    [LAST EQUITY 30 ENTRY 09/16/1960. thence? ]

    Label on front:
    - RG 21, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento
    - Equity Docket Books, 1917-1939
    - 1-251
    - Box No. 1 Series: 4

    Handwritten on cover: "Send by Registered Mail, FRC Bin 521, Permanent Record, G2A 337"

    Relevant pages: U.S. v. Angle at p. "A" (defendant page), "U" (plaintiff page), 30 [2 pp. "cont'd on pg. 267], 252-257, 267-271, 274-276,
    - - -
    Page A, Defendants: Angle, H.C. et al. Page 30
    Page A, Plaintiffs: United States of America vs. H.C. Angle, et al. Page 30
    - - -
    Page 30: Docket 30; Title of Case:
    The United States of America vs. H.C. Angle, A.M. Anderson, A.C. Bayley, L. Bedford, John Bedford, M.G. Bedford, R.E. Blevins, J.L. Feightner, W.W. Gatliff, Ira Green, Aug. Gollnick, Leonard W. Gollnick, James Harmon, Reuben Hartman, Volney Hayton, C.A. Hineline, Chas. Jaeger, John Johansen, John Johansen, Jr., J.E. Knight, J.F. Mallon, G.W. Markham, Preston Morris, Wm. Niesen, James, O'Brien, S.A. Ralston, Ray Shively, E.E. Smith, John H. Soeth, Geo Soeth, Fred E. Strawn, A.J. Triplett, Abe L. Triplett, Frank Troxel, F.W. Troxel, Lloyd Troxel, J.E. True, J. Van Scyoc, A.P. Wakefield
    Attorneys.
    - John W. Preston, U.S. Attorney, Ed. F. Jared, Asst. U.S. Attorney
    Suit for Adjudication of Water Rights on a Certain Portion of Stoney Creek, with the Particular Present Purpose of Securing a Temporary Injuction Against the Use of Water Stored by the Government in East Park Reservoir for the Orland Project.
    - - -
    [right-hand columns: 1) No. of Words; Clerk's Fees: 2) Plaintiff. 3) Defendant; 4) Amount Reported in Emolument Returns.]

    1918


    05/28/1918 Filed Bill of Complaint .10 Filed praecipe .10 ; 2) .20
    - Issued Subpena ad Resp. 1.00 and 39 attest copies @ .55 21.45 ; 2) 22.45
    - 31 - Filed Order Setting Down for Hearing Plaintiff's Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Appointment and Authorization of a Water Commissioner during Pendency of Cause. Set for 06/10/1918, at 10 a.m. at Sacramento. Entered Order (1 OR. BOOK IN EQUITY, page 23); 1) 335, 2) .10 & .45
    - Made 39 copies of Order to Show Cause 131 pp. @ .10 13.10, Cert. and Seal to 39 copies @ 3.5 cents 13.65; 2) 26.75
    06/10 Filed Subpoena on return. .10, Filed cert. copy Order to Show Cause on return. .10 ; 2) .20
    - Filed Affidavit of J.F. Mallon .10, Filed Affidavit of Allen T. Moore. .10; 3) .20
    - Hearing on Or. Show Cause; or. E.T. Erickson [sic] appointed Water Commissioner herein.
    - Filed Prelim. Inj. & Appt. of Water Commr. .10, Entered same (1 EQ. JOURN. .15); 2) .25
    - 11 - Filed Oath of E.T. Erickson [sic] on appointment as Water Commissioner .10, Jurat to same. .45; 2) .55
    - Filed Stip. Extending time to plead D.10, Filed Admission of Service of Affidavits of Certain Defts. D.10; 3) .20
    - Filed following affidavits: J.E. Knight D.01 [sic], W. Salisbury, D .10 A.L. Triplett D.10 Alvin Gollnick D.10; 3) .40
    - W.W. Gatliff D.10 Fred Strong D.10 J.H. Soeth D.10 J.O. Johansen D.10 Wm. Niesen D.10 J.E. True D.10 G.W. Markham D.10; 3) .70
    - E.E. Smith D.10 F.W. Troxel D.10 John Johansen D.10 M.G. Bedford D.10 A.L. Triplett D.10; 3) .50; 4) 4.00
    09/19 Or. certain defts. have to and incl. 12/11/1918, to plead 2.ff [?] D.30 (1 OR. BK EQUITY, p. 26) Filed Stip. & Or. Enlarging Time D.10; 3) .40

    [continued]

    1925


    10/13/1925 Filed Mo for Order, No of Mo. & Affid in support of Mo
    11/02 Mo for order denied; Oliver P. Morton allowed to appear herein as amicus Curea [sic]

    [continued]

    1930


    01/03/1930 Filed motion to approve report & affid of mailing
    6 Filed Reports of Water Comm for season of 1929
    13 Filed Order vacating pro confesso, etc. ENTERED (B1 - p. 489)
    - Filed Order vacating pro confesso, etc. ENTERED (B1 - p. 490)
    - Filed Proceedings & order. ENTERED (B1 - p. 404)
    - Filed Decree. ENTERED
    - Made & filed Enrolled papers
    - Docket [?]

    2. ORDER BOOK IN EQUITY:

    Referenced in Docket Book, Order Book not yet found

    [various references from, to]

    Vol. 1, p. 23

    Vol. 3, p. 347

    3. EQUITY JOURNAL:

    [not yet found]

    4. MINUTE BOOK:

    [not yet found]

    5. 1918 - 1930 PAPERS - boxes


    Dates are dates Filed where available

    Notes:
  • F = Filed;
  • S = Signed by Judge;
  • R = Received;
  • spelled months are from the typed undated list of filings in b6 Large Brown Envelope #1, numerical filing numbers from 1980 onward are from the filings themselves;
  • b1 = box 1, for instance;
  • 13/39 = folder 13 of 39 for instance as of the end of 02/2009, folder contents are in random order, folders are in random order in the boxes, folders may migrate from box to box, etc., some transcripts may be missing;
  • - or -- = I have copy although some are too faint to copy adequately;
  • Tule or 6M/12M = Angle records misfiled in bankrupt Tule Irrigation District Folder 6M, for instance;
  • * = note to me to make a copy;
  • numbers after this "b6 7/39" [for instance] format are random numbers appering on the file or on the filing;
  • at some time the boxes have been repacked, thus losing the Archives' Accession numbers

    ????03 Burt Cole, Storage Reservoirs on Stony Creek, California, United States Geological Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation paper No. 86, Series J, Water Storate, 8, at a number of places on the internet including     57th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, Document No. 490; discussion of Briscoe, Mill Site & East Park sites; p. 13 population decline towards the end of the 19th century, pp. 14-19 failure of Central Irrigation District, p. 19 questionable practice of ranchers running stock in the coast ranges setting fire to the underbrush on their way out at the end of summer, p. 20-22 proposed Stony Creek Forest Reserve which led to California's first National Forest, p. 36 Grindstone, Salt Creek, & North Fork; p. 48- East Park, "The drainage area above the dam is quite extensive but of relatively low elevation" - p. 60 "There would probably not be sufficient run-off to fill...Little Stony Creek reservoirs in years of very low rainfall."; p. 58 Mill Site, discussion of diverting Stony into Hambright & Eppinger Creeks; p. 60 "The lands of portions of Glenn and Colusa counties have steadily decreased in value, fertility, and population for the last ten years."
    060916 Notice of Application of Water, George Clark, my mother's mother's father; ignored by Reclamation
    ????17 Reclaiming the Arid West, the Story of the United States Reclamation Service, by George Wharton James, New York, Dodd, Mead, 1917, "Chapter VIII Growing Oranges Under the Shadow of Mt. Shasta, The Orland Project, California"

    1918

    052818 Typewritten partial Docket sheet, b6 Large Brown Envelope 304137-
    052818 F Bill of Complaint /s/ Jno. N. Preston, U.S. Atty for the Northern District of California; Ed. F. Jared, Asst U.S. Atty b6 Large Brown Envelope #1 -- 304137-1
  • 032818 Verification, A.N. Burch, Project Manager of the Orland Project
    052818 F Praecipe for Subpoena ad resp. & cert. copies Or. Show Cause b4 14/39
    05/28 Filed Comp1aint Issued subpoena etc
    053118 F S Order Setting Down for Hearing Plaintiff's Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Appointment and Authorization of a Water Commissioner During Pendency of Cause B5 22/39
    053118 F S Order Setting Down for Hearing Plaintiff's Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Appointment and Authorization of a Water Commissioner During Pendency of Cause [attached to 061818 certified copy below] b5 22/39
    " Hearing order show cause. E. T. Eriksen appointed water Commissioner.
    061018 F Certified Copy of Order to Show Cause with Complaint Attached, many Marshal returns attached b5 22/39 Marshall's Docket No. 8589
    061018 F S Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of Water Commissioner. b4 14/39 -
  • Filed oath of Eriksen

    061018 F Affidavit of J.F. Mallon; as with most of these affidavits at this time, defendant's affidavit in response to petition, description of land and irrigation practices thereon b4 14/39
    061018 F Affidavit of Allen T. Moore b4 14/39
    061018 Subpena ad Respondendum, various returns b4 14/39

    061118 Letter E.T. Eriksen to clerk: oath, compensation b4 14/39
    061118 F Oath of E.T. Eriksen on Apt. as Water Commissioner b4 15/39
    061118 F Stipulation Extending Time b4 15/39

    061118 F Affidavit of M.G. Bedford b4 14/39
    061118 F Affidavit of W.W. Gatliff b4 15/39
  • (Notices of Appropriation attached)
    061118 F Affidavit of Alvin Gollnick b4 15/39
  • (Water Right Notices attached)
    061118 F Affidavit of J.O. Johannsen b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of John Johansen b4 14/39
  • recitation of two appropriation notices
    061118 F Affidavit of J.E. Knight b4 15/39
  • (Notice of right att.)
    061118 F Affidavit of G.W. Markham b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of Wm. Niesen b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit W. J. Salisbury b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of E.E. Smith b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of J.H. Soeth b4 15/39
  • (Notice of Water Location att.)
    061118 F Affidavit of Fred Strong ( Fred Strawn ) East Park severed year-round underflow on Little Stony b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of A.L. Triplett (for Wakefield & Ralston) b4 15/39
    061118 F Affidavit of A.L. Triplett (for himself) East Park severed year-round underflow on Little stony b4 15/39
  • Exhibit A, Notice of Location of Water Right, 06/18/1908
    061118 F Affidavit of F.W. Troxel b4 14/39
  • Exhibit A, S.N. Green Claim of Water Right 04/11/1984
  • Exhibit B, Martha West Extension Ditch Notice 04/18/1884
    061118 F Affidavit of I.E. True b4 15/39
    061118 F Admission of Service of Affidavits on Certain Defendants on Injunction b4 15/39

    091918 F S Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (J. Van Fleet) b4 15/39
    112918 F S Stipulation Extending Time of Certain Defts to Plead b4 15/39 (Judge W.T. Dooling?)

    1919

    1919 Filed 16 affidavits
    030319 F S Stipulation (Extending time of 36 defendants to Plead) b4 15/39
    040319 Application, New Parties Defendant, Leave to file Amended Bill of complaint, Order to continue Preliminary Injuction and appointment & authorization of Water Commissioner, b5 16/39 -- 304137-1
    040319 F S Order Bring in New Parties, Giving Leave to file Amended Complaint, and Continuing in Force and Effect the Preliminary Injunction and Appointment and Authorization of a Water Commissioner, Heretofore Issued and Made in This Cause b6 B1M/12M
    040319 F Amended Complaint, /s/ Oliver P. Morton, District Counsel, U.S. Reclamation Service; Annette Abbott Adams, US Atty for Northern District of California; ? ? Silva?, Assistant U.S. Atty b6 Large Brown Envelope #1 -- 304137-1
  • 033119 Verification A.N. Burch, Project Manager of the Orland project
    040319 F Praecipe, issue 450 subpoenas and amended bills of complaint b4 15/39
    040319 F S Stipulation and Order extending time of H.C. Angle, R.E. Blevins, and J.F. Mallon to plead b5 16/39
    040319 F S Stipulation and Order extending time of 36 defendants to plead B5 16/39
    04/05 Filed application for order making new parties defendants, for leave to file amended complaint etc
  • Filed order bringing in new parties defendants etc
  • Fi1ed AMENDED COMPLAINT
    043019 F S Stipulation Extending Time to Plead, State of California b5 16/39
    043019 Marshall's return, many, including State of California 04/10/1919 -- [cover inside out, F 052319]
    050519 F S Stipulation Extending Time to Plead, Cook Springs Mineral Water Co., Charles E. Pearson, F.M. Kesselring and Annie M. Kesselring b5 16/39

    050619 F Answer of John M. Adams; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of Dora A. Fender; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of R.P. Kennedy and J.R. Kennedy; of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of Annie Evans Lovelady; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of W.J. Lovelady; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of John W. Millsaps; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050619 F Answer of J.F. Stites; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39

    050919 F Answer of E.C. Kaerth; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050919 F Answer of C.W. Lovelace; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39
    050919 F Answer of Rufus G. Stites; proof of service by Thomas Rutledge b5 16/39

    051319 F Marshal's Return on subpoena, hundreds of defendants b5 16/39
    051619 F S Stipulation Extending Time to Move or Plead Fruto Land and Improvement Company b5 16/39
    051919 F S Stipulation Extending Time to Plead Fouts Springs Company b5 16/39
    052319 F Marshall's return, many, including State of California 04/10/1919 -- [cover inside out, same as 04/30/1919] Marshal's Docket No. 8876
    052419 F S Stipulation and Order Extending Time to Plead, Answser, etc. Eliz. A. Rogers, Eliz. J. Rogers, Motague & Faxon b5 16/39
    100319 F Application, New Parties Defendant, etc. [but....]
    100319 F Amended Complaint [NOT FOUND? error in 2001 listing? s/b 04/03, not 10/03? <== check, get >
    100419 F Application for order making (55) new parties defendants b5 17/39 -- 30413
    100419 F S Order Bring In (55) New Parties b5 17/39 --
    100419 F Stipulation as to Settlement of Pleadings, etc. b5 17/39 -- 304138
  • Exhibit "A" listing defendants by solicitor ( Brown & Albery, T.A. Farrell, Frank Freeman; Frank Freeman & Heller, Powers & Ehrman; D.F. Geis, William E. Johnson, William B. Kollmyer, Chas. R. Lewers, McCoy & Gans, Claude F. Purkitt, Chas. Sullivan, H.S. Young )
    100419 F Motion for Service by Order, with Oliver P. Morton Affidavit (D.V. Besser, Freedman Bros., Emma Wicher, Lucinda Rich, J.A. Nelson, Harrison B. Riley) b5 17/39
    100419 F S Order for Service on Non-Resident Defendants (D.V. Besser, Freedman Bros., Emma Wicher, Lucinda Rich, J.A. Nelson, Harrison B. Riley) b5 17/39
    110119 F Praecipe for Alias Subpoena Ad Respondendum, for 32 defendants b5 17/39
    110119 F Praecipe for Alias Subpoena Ad Respondendum, for John Francis Ahern, Samuel A. Boles, J.J. Chambers (ever served?), Della Ludlow, S. Pinkerton, C.B. Purington b5 17/39
    110119 F Praecipe for Certified Copies of Order (for Service) for D.V. Besser, Freedman Bros., Emma Wicher, Lucinda Rich, J.A. Nelson, Harrison B. Riley b5 17/39
    110119 F Praecipe for (55) subpoenas ad respondendum (plus 55 orders of the court, 55 of the amended complaint) b5 17/39
    111019 F Marshal's Return David V. Besser b5 17/39
    111019 F Marshal's Return J.A. Nelson b5 17/39
    111019 F Marshal's Return Harrison B. Riley b5 17/39 15227
    111519 F Disclaimer of Defendant Finnel Land Company b5 17/39
    111519 F Return, Freedman Bros., L. Freedman b5 17/39 Doc 1450 p. 104
    111519 F Return, C.B. Purington, S. Pinkerton, S.A. Boles, Della Ludlow, John Francis Ahern, b5 17/39 Marshal's Civil Docket No. 3873
    111819 F Answer F.M. Kesselring, Annie M. Kesselring, Chas. E. Pearson b5 17/39 -
    112019 F Marshal's return Mrs. Emma Wicher bt 17/39
    112619 F Answer of C.M. Hall and Gertrude C. Hall,
  • UNDATED Exhibit A, description of lands referenced in para. II of Answer
  • 050904 Exhibit B, recitation of 05/09/1904 Stony Creek Irrigation District agreement,
  • 032305 Exhibit C, recitation of 03/23/1905 Stony Creek Irrigation District agreement ; b6 Large Brown Envelope #1
    120419 F Answer of Ruby King Mineral Paint Co. b5 17/39
    121019 F S Stipulation re time to answer J.E. Ayer B5 17/39
    121119 Answer of Fouts Springs Company, C.H. Glenn, J.F. Taylor B5 17/39
    121819 F S Stipulation more time, Claude F. Purkitt's defendants B5 17/39
    121919 F Subpena return, Harrison B. Riley not served, posted the land of D.V. Besser, Lucinda Rich Lucas tenant of land of Lucinda Rich, served the land of J.A. Nelson, served Wm. Roe as caretaker of land of' Emma Wicher, posted lands of Freedman Bros. b5 17/49 Doc 9124
    121919 F Subpena return, James Dougherty, et al. b5 17/49 Doc 8876
    121919 F Subpoena return, Estate of Mark Bailey Bump, Frank Masterson, F.M. Kirkpatrick, J.L. Kirkpatrick, R.L. Kirkpatrick, L.E. Mann, Minnie L. Sadler, Elmer Silver, Justin Firmignac, Mary Ann Newton, Tim O'Leary, Carl Green, John Stice, Mrs. John Stice, J.F. Taylor, Mrs. J.F. Taylor, Linda Mansen, Estate of J.H. Mansen, Mrs I.M. Dixon, Frank Wilson, Estate of S. Wilson, J.P. Lucas, H.G. Rawlins, Mrs. Neoma Rawlins, Geo. R. Freeman, Estate of W.H. Markham, D.A. Markham, Josephine A. Holt, L.B. Traves, C.E. Turner, Olive Scearce Parsons, Orland Land Co., John J. Flaherty, Chas. A. Templeton, Mrs. Chas. A. Templeton, M.H. Carleton, Estate of Annie Shaddock, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Co., Alger Tast, John H. Millsaps, Estate of A.J. Millsaps, W.J. Salisbury, Willard Clark, Geo. W. Fletcher, Butte County Savings's Bank, E.T. Williamson, James Mills Orchard Co., James Mills, G.L. Hoock, Eliza Troxel, M. Tanson, Paul Teihl, Eugene Fately, M.V. Kalloch, ?? Mason, Geo. Hoag, Mrs. Geo. Hoag (and others) b5 17/39 -- doc 9123 304138
    121919 F S Stipulation for more time to answer Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 17/39
    122719 F S Stipulation of more time to answer or plead Tim O'Leary b5 17/39
    122719 F Answer of Tim O'Leary [yup, stip & answer filed same day] b5 17/39

    1920

    010320 F S Stipulation for more time to answer Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 17/39
    010620 F Answer of Defendant J.H.Driscoll b5 17/39
    011420 F Answer of Defendant J.E. Ayer b5 17/39
    012920 F Answer S. Pinkerton b5 17/39 -
    012920 F Stipulation as to Settlement of Pleadings, etc., Attorney list Exhibit A missing (see 10/04/1919?) b5 17/39 -
    020620 F S Stipulation for more time to answer Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 17/39
    030420 F S Stipulation for more time to answer Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 17/39

    031120 F Answer of Defendants Alvin & Leonard Gollnick b5 17/39
    031120 F Answer of Defendants John O. Johansen and Wiebeke Johansen as Executors of... John Johansen, Deceased b5 17/39
    031120 F Answer of Defendant J.E. Knight b5 17/39
    031120 F Answer of Defendant D.W. Markham and G.W. Markham, successor in interest to D.A. Markham b5 18/39
    031120 F Answer of Defendant John Stice b5 17/39
    031120 F Answer of Defendants Frank W. Troxel and Jessie E. Troxel b5 17/39
    031120 F Answer of I.E. True and I.E. True as Successor in Interest of Fred M. Strawn, also sued herein b5 18/39
  • 030886 Exhibit "A" Notice of Water Location, John Johannsen

    040320 F S Stipulation extending time to plead of defendants Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 18/39
    042820 F S Stipulation extending time to plead of defendants Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 18/39
    062420 F Answer of Defendants R.M. Hardin and J.L. Hardin b4 18/39
    072620 F S Stipulation extending time to plead of defendants Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, Superior California Farm Lands Company, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b5 18/39

    090420 F Answer W.A. Glenn and Anna B. Glenn with recitation of Decree of Distribution and Deed b5 18/39
  • [no Exhibit A?]
  • Exhibit B, Decree of Distribution, Estate of A.L. Hall 12/29/1900
  • Exhibit C, Stony Creek Irrigation Company to U.S. of America Deed 05/21/1909
    090420 F Answer Edgar Hunter with recitations of Notices & Deed b5 18/39
    090420 F Answer Ellen Hunter b5 18/39
    092420 F Stipulation of Substitution of Fred Laux, Jr., in Place and Stead of Katherine Laux, deceased b5 18/39
    090420 F Answer Fred Laux Jr. and Ed Franklin Laux, Executors with recitation of Water Application b5 18/39
    090420 F Answer of William Niesen b5 18/39
    092420 F Stipulation of Substitution of H.R. Stewart in Place and Stead of Thomas Fairlee b5 18/39

    102920 F Answer of Defendant A.C. Bayley with recitations of Riparian Right Deed and Water Notice of W.T. Troxel b5 19/39
    102920 F Answer of Defendant Mary O'Leary b5 18/39
    102920 F Answer of Defendant Edith McGahan b5 18/39
    102920 F Answer of Defendant Edith McGahan, Administratrix of Estate of R.L. Walkup, deceased b5 18/39
    102920 F Answer of Defendant John M. Morris and Preston Morris b5 18/39
    102920 F Answer of Defendant A.T. Welton b5 18/39
    102920 F Disclaimer of Defendant Ida Leona Rice b5 18/39
    102920 F Disclaimer of Defendant Snow Mountain Lodge b5 18/39
    102920 F Disclaimer of Defendant Jessie Taylor, and Jessie Taylor as Administratrix of W.S. Taylor, Deceased b5 18/39
    102920 F Disclaimer of Defendant Amelia G. Van Syckle b5 18/39

    120920 F Answer of Defendant, H. H. Tryon (Burrows Creek) b5 19/39 --
    122220 F Admission of Service of Answer of Defendant E. H. Tryon b5 19/39

    1921

    03/21 Index map of Stony Creek Watershed, E.T.Eriksen b4 35/39

    042821 F Application for order making (11) new parties defendants b5 19/39
    042821 F S Order Bringing in (11) New Parties b5 19/39
    052021 F Praecipe for 11 copies subpoena ad respondendum & order of court & amended bill of complaint B5 19/39
    052021 F Praecipe for 14 copies subpoena ad respondendum & 5 of order of court & 9 amended bill of complaint (signatures above the attorneys' names are not those of the attorneys listed) B5 19/39
    063021 F Marshal's return 11 (Bartholomew, et al.) defendants B5 19/39 MD 9965 1
    063021 F Marshal's return 10 (Krause et al.) defendants B5 19/39 MD 9965
    063021 F Marshal's return Dan Rice, J.J. Chambers B5 19/39 Marshal's Civil Docket No. 4307
    070121 F Alias Subpoena return? also? Dan Rice, J.J. Chambers b5 19/39

    070621 F Answer of Harry N. Brittain with recitation of Notice of Appropriation of Water and Deed b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant Geo. C. Ellis with recitation of Notice b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant Joel Ford b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant W.W. Gatliff with recitation of Notice b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant S.N. Green with recitation of Notice of Location of Irrigation Ditch b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant George W. and Frank W. Lewis with recitations of Notices and Deed b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant Harvey E. Province with recitation of Notice of Location of Irrigation Ditch b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant D.P. Ray with recitation of Notice of Appropriation of water b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant Abe L. Triplett with recitation of Notice of Appropriation of Water Right b5 19/39
    070621 F Answer of Defendant A.P. Wakefield and Frank Whally with recitation of Claim to Water b5 19/39

    070821 F S Stipulation for Substitution Henry Chastain in place and stead of Emma Whitcher and W.E. Whitcher b5 19/39
    070821 F S Stipulation for Substitution L.E. Mann in place and stead of Walter Dixon b5 19/39
    080121 F Answer of Defendants Henry Werth and May E. Werth b5 20/29
    080221 F Answer of Defendants Irma I. Moon sued herein as Irma Moon and Pruda Moon b5 20/39

    080521 F Answer of Defendant O.F. Bickford b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Henry J. Chastain, substituted in place of Emma Whitcher and W.E. Whitcher, deceased with recitations of Deed, Water Notice and Diversion Notice b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendants A. Conklin, Wells Conklin and M.L. Conklin; Exhibit A extract of water right b4 1/39 --
    080521 F Answer of Defendant J.T. Edwards with recitation of Notice b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant R.L. Fitzpatrick b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant W.F. Foreman as successor in interest to W.P. Foreman deceased with recitation of Water Notice b5 20/39 "OK C & P"
    080521 F Answer of Defendant N.H. Garrison with recitation of Notice of Appropriation and U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit b5 20/39 "OK C & P"
    080521 F Answer of Defendant L. Hoffmaster b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Lucy Kimel, substituted in place and stead of J. Van Scyoc b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant Frank M. Kirkpatrick b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant Margaret Kirkpatrick b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant R.L. Kirkpatrick b5 20/39 "OK C & P"
    080521 F Answer of Defendant Perry Mulford with recitations of Water Right and Water Notice b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of defendant S.F. Paine b4 1/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant Eugene K. Reynolds, Administrator of the Estate of Isidore Reynolds, deceased, sued herein as Isabel Reynolds b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant J.S. Sale b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant E.E. Smith b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant John H. Soeth with recitation of claim to Water Flowing b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendant Joseph M. Tanson b5 20/39
    080521 F Answer of Defendants Paul Teilh and Rose Servel, Administratrix of the Estate of Fred Servel, Deceased, substituted in the place and stead of Justus Firmignad and Eugenie Fatley b4 1/39
    080521 F Guy H. Ward...substituted in the place and stead of Squire M. Silver and L.M. Silver, his wife (Water Notice att.) b4 1/39
    080521 F Disclaimer A.R. Bickford b4 1/39

    092021 F Substitution of Guy H. Ward in place and stead of S.M. Silver b4 1/39
    092921 F Substitution of Lucy Kimel in place and stead of J. Van Scyoc b4 1/39

    112121 F Answer of Defendants L.E. BROWNELL, I.L. BROWNELL, R.H. Brownell, and Mrs. L.R. Brownell b4 1/39 -
    112121 F Answer of Defendant J.W. Edwards b4 1/39 2003
    112121 F Answer of Defendant C.L. Simpson b4 1/39
    112121 F Answer of Defendant Z.E. Simpson b4 1/39
    112121 F Disclaimer of Defendant John F. Ahern, b4 1/39
    112121 F Disclaimer of Defendants John Fitzpatrick, Bertha Schults, E.C. Schults and Leland Schults b4 1/39
    112121 F Disclaimer of Defendants A. Hochheimer and Hochheimer Company, a Corporation b4 1/39
    112121 F Disclaimer of Defendants F. Houghton & F. Houghton Co. b4 1/39
    112121 F Disclaimer of Defendant Henrietta Steinegger b4 1/39

    11/22 Filed answer of Johnson et al
    112221 F Answer: Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District --
  • Exhibit A - Indenture of Lease, Central Irrigation District & Willard M. Sheldon
  • Exhibit B - Willard M. Sheldon assignes to Central Canal Irrigation District
  • Exhibit C - Central Irrigation District Notice of Water Location
  • Exhibit D - Cental Canal and Irrigation Company Notice of Appropriation
  • Exhibit E - M. N. Sheldon Notice of Water Location
  • Exhibit F? - Agreement between Central Canal and Irrigation Company and U.S. Reclamation Service
  • Exhibit G? and H? - extracts of letters, board resolutions, etc. of Central Canal & Irrigation Company b4 1/39 --

    112521 F Answer of Defendants R.E. Blevins and J.F. Mallon b4 1/3$
    112521 F Answer of Defendant L. R. Cushman b4 1/39
    113021 F Answer of Defentant Fruto Land & Improvement Co., A Corporation b4 1/39
    120521 F Answer of Defendant R. T. Bedford b 1 2/39
    121521 F Stipulation (Disclaimer crossed out) of Defendant J.E. Ayer to 110419 Stip b4 2/39
    122321 F Disclaimer of California Farm Lands Company, a Corp, b4 2/39

    1922

    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for [illegible] defendants b4 2/39
    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for W.B. Kollmyer defendants b4 2/39
    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for McCoy & Garris defendants b4 2/39
    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for D. Pinkerton b4 2/39
    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for Rutledge defendants b4 2/39
    010322 F S Stipulation and Order, time for C.L. Witten defendants b4 2/39

    011722 F Stipulation, 12 parties to 110419 Stip b4 2/39
    012322 F Assent of Tim O'Leary to Stipulation as to Settlement of Pleadings b4 2/39
    021022 F Stipulation, Hankins & Hankins joining the 110419 Stip b4 2/39
    033122 F Petition for Order Bringing in New Parties Defendant b4 2/39
    033122 F S Order Bringing in New Parties b4 2/39
    042222 F Disclaimer of Maurice Rosenthal and Rosedale Realty b4 2/39
    042622 Answer of Defendant J.H. Driscoll b4 2/39

    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant John M. Adams b4 5/39 E2E
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant J.E. Ayer b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant A.C.(Arthur C) Bayley b4 4/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant O.F. Bickford b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Harry N. Brittan b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Henry J. Chastain b4 1/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendants A. Conklin, Wells Conklin and M.L. Conklin b4 2/39 -- "OK ETE 3-8-22" 304136-1
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant J.T. Edwards b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Geo. C. Ellis b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Dora A. Fender b4 5/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Joel Ford b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant W.F. Foreman b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant W.H. Garrison b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant W.W. Gatliff b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant W.A. Glenn and A.B. Glenn b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Alvin Gollnick and Leonard Gollnick b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant S.N. Green b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant C.M. Hall and Gertrude C. Hall b4 3/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant R.M. Hardin and J.L. Hardin b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant L. Huffmaster b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Edgar Hunter b4 5/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Ellen Hunter b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-2-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant John O. Johansen and Wiebeke Johansen, execuor of John Johansen, dec'd b4 5/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant E.C. Kaerth b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant H.P. Kennedy and J.R. Kennedy b4 3/39 ETE
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant F.M. Kesselring, Annie M. Kesselring and Chas. E. Pearson b4 3/39 -
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Lucy Kimel b4 5/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant C.W. Lovelace b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Annie Evans Lovelady (sued herein as Mrs. T.E. Lovelady) b4 4/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant W.J. Lovelady, T.F. Lovelady and Annie Evans Lovelady b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant John W. Millsaps b4 5/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Tim O'Leary b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Ruby King Mineral Paint Co. b4 3/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant J.E. Stites b4 5/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Rufus G. Stites b4 5/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Frank W. Troxel and Jessie E. Troxel b4 6/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant I.E. True b4 2/39
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendants A.P. Wakefield and Frank Whalley b4 2/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    042922 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Guy H. Ward b4 2/39

    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Frank M. Kirkpatrick, (sued herein as F.M. Kirkpatrick) b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Margaret Kirkpatrick b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant R.L. Kirkpatrick b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant J.E. Knight b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Fred Laux, Jr. and Ed. Franklin Laux b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant George F. Lewis and Frank W. Lewis b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant G.W. Markham and G.W. Markham as successor in interest of D.A. Markham b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Edith McGahan b4 5/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Edith McGahan, Admx. of the est. of R.I. Walkup, deceased b4 5/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Irma I. Moon and Pruda Moon b4 6/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant John M. Morris and Preston Morris b4 6/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Perry Mulford b4 6/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Wm. Niesen b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Mary O'Leary (sued herein as Mrs. M. O'Leary) b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-8-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant S.F. Paine b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Harvey E. Province b4 4/39
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant D.P. Ray b4 3/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Eugene K. Reynolds, Admr. Est. of Isadore [sic] Reynolds b4 3/39 "OK ETE 3-6-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant J.S. Sale b4 3/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant E.E. Smith b4 6/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant John H. Soeth b4 3/39 EWE 3-7-22
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant John Stice b4 6/39 "OK ETE 3-3-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Joseph M. Tanson b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-6-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Paul Teilh and Rose Servel b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-6-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant Abe L. Triplett b4 4/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"
    050122 Replication to Answer of Defendant A.T. Welton b4 5/39 "OK ETE 3-4-22"

    050222 F Disclaimer of Central Pacific Railway Company b3 8/39

    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant R.T. Bedford b4 6/39 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant R.E. Blevins and J.F. Mallon b4 6/39 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant L.E. BROWNELL, I.L. (or R.L.) Brownell, R.H. Brownell and Mrs. R.L. BROWNELL b4 6/39 - 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant L.R. Cushman b4 6/39 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant J.W. Edwards b4 6/39 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant Fruto Land & Improvement Co. b4 6/39 2000
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant C.L. Simpson b4 6/39 2000 PR Except St 8 et seq ETE
    050822 Replication to Answer of Defendant Z.E. Simpson b4 6/39 2000

    051322 F Praecipe for subpoena ad respondendum with 13 attested copies, for persons listed in the 03/31/22 order b3 8/39
    051322 Subpoena with returns for 13 persons (Case et al.) b3 8/39 MD 10549
    051322 F Praecipe for subpoena ad respondendum with 7 attested copies, plus 2 of order bringing in new parties 10/04/1919, plus 7 copies amended bill of complaint, 7 persons named, two subpoenas for E.K. Piersol of Claremont and M.L. Dimmick of Los Angeles b3 8/39
    051322 Subpoena with returns for 9 persons (Hoag et al.) b3 8/39
    051322 Subpoena with returns for 2 (Kallock & Jones) of the 9 b3 8/39 MD 10549

    051522 F Answer of Defendants J.A. Flanagan, Joseph J. Flanagan, Francis D. Flanagan, and Anna Flanagan b3 8/39
    051522 F Answer of Defendants Mrs. D.H. Msterson, J.K. Masterson and F.P. Masterson for themselves individually and as successors to L.H. Frisbie and to D.H. Masterson, Deceased b3 8/39 304137

    051722 F Replication to Answer of Defendant J.H. Driscoll b3 8/39
    051722 F Replication to Answer of Defendants Fouts Springs Co., sued herein as C.H. Glenn and J.F. Taylor b3 7/39
    051722 F Replication to Answer of Defendant E.H. Tryon b3 7/39 - --
    051722 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Henry Werth and May E. Werth (John T. Williams United States Attorney, Oliver P. Mortion, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Henry A. Cox, District Counsel U.S. Reclamation Service) b3 7/39

    051922 F Original Answer of Defendant P.V. Berkey b3 7/39
    051922 F Original Answer of Defendant L.E. Mann b3 7/39
    051922 F Original Answer of Defendant Charles H. Ridley, recitation of Water Location b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant John Bedford b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant M.G. Bedford b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant E.W. Burnham b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant William Dodd b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant L.L. Feightner b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Ira Green b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Reuben Hartman b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Volney Hayton b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Charles Jaeger b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant J.L. Kirkpatrick b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant William Lyons b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant F.M. Millsaps b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant James O'Brien b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Ray Shively b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant J.S. Silver b3 7/39
    051922 F Disclaimer of Defendant Eliza Troxel b3 7/39

    05/20 Filed replication to answrs of certain defts

    052022 F Praecipe for Pro Confesso Order b3 8/39
    052022 F Order Taking Amended Complaint Pro Confesso, against 249 defendants, unsigned b3 8/39

    052222 F Answer of Defendant L. Bedford b3 8/39
    052222 F Answer of Defendant James O. Brittain b3 8/39
    052222 F Disclaimer of Defendant A.M. Anderson b3 8/39
    052222 F Disclaimer of Defendant Samuel Boles b3 8/39
    052222 F Disclaimer of Defendant F.M. Millsaps b3 8/39
    052022 F Replication to the Answer of S. Pinkerton b3 8/39

    052522 F Praecipe for subpoena defendant M.L. Dimmick b3 8/39
    052522 Subpoena to M.L. Dimmick, marshal's return b3 8/39 MD 10549
    052622 F Answer of Certain Defendants, W.E. Scearce, Mary J. Scearce, Olive Scearce Parsons, formerly Olive Scearce, to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, /s/ W.E. Johnson, atty, plus each party (in his handwriting?)
  • UNDATED Exhibit A, description of land
  • 051604 Exhibit B, recitation of 05/16/1904 Stony Creek Irrigation District Agreement, b6 Large Envelope #1
    05/26 Filed answer of deft Sceador et al

    052922 F Answer of Defendant E.M. Bartholomew b3 9/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Alex Brown, recitation of notice appropriation b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant W.B. Cooper b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Jacob Diefenbach, recitation of Notice b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Thomas Fairlee b3 9/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant W.J. Fouts (Foutch?) b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Carl Green, recitation of Notice of Appropriation of Water b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant James Harmon b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant S.A. Hineline, sued herein as C.A. Hineline b3 9/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Ellen Lucas b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant John C. Mock b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant E.C. Phelps b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant I.L. Robertson b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Robt. Rowcroft, recitation of Notice of Water Location b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant J.W. Sawyer substituted in the place and stead of H.C. Angle, recitation of water Public Notice b3 8/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant H.R. Stewart substituted in place and stead of Thos. Fairlee b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant C.E. Studebaker b3 10/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant Marguerita Williams Welch b3 9/39
    052922 F Answer of Defendant F.C. Wood b3 10/39
    052922 F Disclaimer of Defendant C.L. Donohoe b3 9/39
    052922 F Disclaimer of Defendant James E. Drew b3 9/39

    053122 Petition for Dismissal as to Certain Defendants, for Setting Down of the Cause for Trial, and as to Related Matters no file stamp [same as 06/20/1922 ?] b4 14/39
    060122 Letter Morton to Clerk forwarding for filing answer of Harbison b3 9/39
    060222 F Receipt for service by State of California for 05/31/1922 petition --
    060222 F Answer of defendant John A. Harbison, sued herein as John Harbison, appended map showing claim b3 9/39
    060222 F Praecipe requesting that Order Pro Confesso be taken against certain defendants (long list including Mastersons) b3 9/39 -- 304137
    060222 F Order Taking Amended Complaint Pro Confesso (long list including Mastersons who had already answered), unsigned b3 9/39 -- 304137
    060322 F Substitution of Thomas Fairlee in place of John M. Morris, Morris Answer filed heretofore b3 9/39
    060322 F Substitution of Ellen Lucas in the place and stead of C.A. Lucas, deceased b3 9/39
    060322 F Substitution of Edith McGahan, Administratrix of the Estate of R. L. Walkup, deceased in place of W.A. Morris b3 9/39
    060322 F Substitution of Marguerita Williams Welch, in place of Roy Welch, deceased b3 9/39
    060522 F Praecipe for duplicates and copies of Order for Service on Non-resident Defendant J.M. Eastby, 2 duplicates, 2 attested copies of 06/02/1922 order b3 9/39
    060522 F [Motion for Service by Order, Affidavit for Service by Order, title on cover is wrong:] Order for Service on Non-Resident Defendant J.M. Eastby b3 9/39
    060522 F S [Order for Service on Non-Resident Defendant, covers on these 2 are swapped:] Motion for Service by Order and Affidavit for Service by Order on J.M. Eastby be 9/39
    061022 F [typewritten] Petition for Dismissal as to Certain Defendants, for setting down of the cause for trial, and as to related matters b4 14/39 -- 304137
    061322 F Answer of Defendant Lloyd Troxel b3 9/39
    062022 F [typeset: Notice of Motion to Set]; Petition for Dismissal as to Certain Defendants, for Setting Down of the Cause for Trial, and as to Related Matters (including dismissal of riparians including Underflow Users along lower Stony) b3 9/39 -- 304137 [& copy w/06/26/1922 return b3 9/39]
    062022 F Answer to Petition for Dismissal by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (objects to dismissing all the lower Stony Creek users, underflow or otherwise, would lead to further litigation, etc.) b3 9/39 -
    062422 F Praecipe for order pro confesso 12 defendants b3 9/39
    062422 F Order pro confesso 12 defendants, unsigned b3 9/39

    062422 F S Order , adding some appearing -- voluntarily; correcting names of others, accepting filings of the Water Commissioner, dismissing State of California without prejudice, overruling motion to dismiss GCID and other lower Stony ( Underflow ) users b3 9/39 304137

    062422 F Proof of Service of [typeset] Petition and Notice of Hearing, Morton on a number of lawyers & parties, Cox on Mrs. Elizabeth Miller, service receipts attached for a number of solicitors ( in heading, Thos. A. Berkabile, Brown & Albery, Frank Freeman, Duard F. Geis, Hankins & Hankins, H.T. Hiatt, W.E. Johnson, Guy R. Kennedy, Wm. E. Kollmyer, McCoy & Gans, Claude F. Purkitt, Thomas Rutledge, U.S. Webb, C.L. Witten, H. Young ) b3 10/39
    062622 F Return of Marshall, Distr. of So. Dakota, on Service of Notice (re 6/24/22 setting for trial, and Copy of Petition (dismissing and setting for trial, etc.) on J.M. Eastby b3 9/39
    062622 F Return of marshall on service of Certified Copy of Order for Service on non-Resident Defendant J.M. Eastby b3 10/39

    062922 F S Order (appointing Geo. A. McCutchen as master pro hac vice to hold hearings in Willows, and return proofs and findings of fact and conclusions of law) b3 10/39 -- 304137

    062922 F Reports of Water Commissioner E.T. Eriksen, 06/1918 to 10/01/1921 b6 Large Brown Envelope #1 --
  • 07/01/1918 for 06/1918, defendants assert return flow is large and water available for defendants should include those returns, could not verify so guessed it as 3 sec feet for visible, 20% for invisible; started gauging ditches and streams 06/17; "Most of the rights are old and before the government started the work of reclaiming the large areas of land of the Orland project there was no urgency for conserving the Creek supply. The ditches and headgates are, with few exceptions poorly constructed and methods of irrigation very crude. As a result losses from seepage and evaporation, especially the latter, during hot weather are abnormal. Control of diversions is also difficult because of flimsy construction or entire absence of heading structures in many areas." Urged ditch owners to begin improving and conserving.
  • 07/31/1918 for 07/1918, several years of reduced rainfall, rotation needed, sent letter to all, copy attached [MISSING?]; pumping plants minimal; good cooperation, only one complaint, Abe L. Triplett to his attorney Mr. Purkitt, insufficient water to his new young alfalfa, admits poor condition of the ditch is part of the problem, large head helps;
  • 08/31/1918 for 08/1918,
  • 09/30/1918 for 09/1918, heavy rain 09/11 - 09/13, plus on 09/23 broke the drouth, all streams running, well elevations rose 8-10 feet in Stony Creek valley, evaporation decreased with lower temperatures, flow at Project diversions sufficient so deliveries from East Park cut off 09/14 until 09/22;
  • 08/01/1919 for 07/1919, abundant rain, sufficient natural flow until 05/27, close inspection or regulation not needed until 07/22, pumping plants seldom used, carriage losses very low
  • 09/01/1919 for 08/1919, high flows, no measurements needed until 08/20, carriage losses low
  • 10/01/1919 for 09/1919, good flows continued, light September rains helped, East Park supply exhausted, carriage losses low
  • 06/01/1920 for 05/1920, serious shortage of water, rainfall short for 4 years, letter to diverters attached [MISSING?]; only 21,000 a-f East Park inflow from Little Stony & feed canal, releases started 05/05 to save the orchards and attempt 50-60% yields of alfalfa, etc.
  • 07/01/1920 for 06/1920, East Park storage down to 12,100 at 06/30; no further alfalfa yields can be expected if the orchards are to be saved;
  • 08/01/1920 for 07/1920, East Park at 6,000 a-f at 07/31; rotation in place; 3 pumping plants for short periods;
  • 08/31/1920 for 08/1920, high temperatures and high carriage losses; East Park at 1,000 a-f at 08/31, all tributaries dry, springs and mountain streams very low; rigorous rotation, some pumping, carriage losses heavy;
  • 09/30/1920 for 09/1920, East Park empty 09/09, no further work for Commissioner for season; rotation continued successfully;
  • 07/01/1921 for 06/1921, Drouth broken but heavy rain early, light later, draw on storage started 06/13, Grindstone flow continued heavy, increased diversions due to no or poor headgates, proper head-works for each ditch needed; 5 small pumping plants for short periods, induced by higher stream flow, but plants are gasoline and high price of fuel vs. low price for alfalfa make it unprofitable for irrigation;
  • 08/01/1921 for 07/1921, natural flow high, drafts on East Park increased from 158 s.f. to 240 s.f.; 5 pumping plants continued sporadically; carriage losses low;
  • 09/01/1921 for 08/1921, cooler weather, reduced diversion needs, natural flow sufficient, less monitoring needed; now 6 pumping plants, mostly gardens; carriage losses low;
  • 10/01/1921 for 09/1921;

    063022 F Alias Subpoena ad respondendum, 7 [Hoag, et al.] plus 2 defendants, with returns for the 2 b3 10/39 "Marshall's Civil Docket No. 4307"
    070122 F S Time stipulation, with E.K. Peirsol b3 10/39 W. T. Dooling, Judge
    070122 F Answer of E.K. Peirsol b3 10/39
    071422 F Answer of defendant W.A. Morris b3 10/39

    081722 F Replication to Answer of P.V. Berkey b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of James C. Britten b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Alex Brown b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Jacob Diefenbach b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Thomas Fairlee b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of W.J. Foutch (Fouts?) b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of W.B. Cooper b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Carl Green b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of S.A. Hineline b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Ellen Lucas b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of John C. Mogk (J.G. Mogk) [Mock?] b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of E.C. Phelps b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Charles H. Ridley b3 10/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of I.L. Robertson b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Robert Rowecroft b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Lloyd Troxel b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of Marguerita Williams Welch b3 11/39
    081722 F Replication to Answer of F.C. Wood b3 11/39

    090522 F Replication to Answer of E.M. Bartholomew b3 11/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of L. Bedford b3 11/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of James Harmon b3 12/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of John A. Harrison b3 12/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of L.E. Mann b3 12/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of W.A. Morris b3 11/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of E.K. Peirsol (sued herin as E.K. Piersol) b3 11/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of J.W. Sawyer (usual riparian clauses) b4 14/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of W.E. Scearce, et al., /s/ John T. Williams, U.S. Atty; Oliver P. Morton, Special Assistant to the Attorney General; Henry A. Cox, District Counsel, U.S. Reclamation Service, b6 Large Brown Envelope #1
    090522 F Replication to Answer of H.H. Stewart b3 12/39
    090522 F Replication to Answer of C.E. Studybaker b3 12/39

    091422 Letter from District counsel Brooks Fullerton asking for certified copies of Contracts 257 (became plaintiff's Exhibit 21), 303 (Exhibit 22), 518 (Exhibit 23) and 546 (Exhibit 24) b4 34/39
    091522 F Praecipe, asking for Order Taking Amended Complaint Pro Confesso (against various defendants) b4 14/39
    091522 F Order Taking Amended Complaint Pro Confesso, clerk sig b3 12/39
    092522 F Affidavit of Service by Mail, Frank Freeman, served Morton, answers of Annie Hoever, Esperanza Land Corporation, James Mills Orchards Company, Andrew Kaiser, Sacramento Valley Sugar Company, R.T. Jones, Joe. M. Billiou, Leona S. Billiou and Richard J. Billiou (filing date is correct) b3 12/39 -

    092522 F Answer of Defendant Joseph M. Billiou, Leona S. Billiou and Richard J. Billiou b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant Esperanza Land Corporation b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant Annie Hoever b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant James Mills Orchard Corporation b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant R.T. Jones b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant Andrew Kaiser b3 12/39 -
    092522 F Answer of Defendant Sacramento Valley Sugar Company b3 12/39 -

    092922 F Marshal's Amended Return of Service: Jas. Roden, Walter Roden, Anna C. Burrows, Aura C. Burrows, I.A. Burrows, C. Cushman, J.C. Cushman, L.V. Cushman b4 13/39
    092922 F S Order (by Special Master Appointing Emmet Healy stenographic Reporter, S 06/26/1922) b3 12/39 --
    092922 F S Order (by Special Master) Setting Date for Trial 10/12.1922, list of solicitors att. b4 13/39

    [10/12/1922 Hearings begin in Willows]

    101022 Letter Morton to Clerk forwarding replication to answer of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District b3 12/39
    101222 F Replication to Answer of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District b3 12/39 --
    101222 F S Stipulation for Amendment of Amended Complaint, see (Stip bears 10/12/1922 date, cover 01/16/1923 - duplicate acknowlegement by defense attorneys?) b4 27/39
    101422 F Amended Answer of E.K. Peirsol b4 37/39
    102022 F Oath of Office of Special Master [notarized by the clerk & filed 8 days after he started hearings, 22 days after he started issuing orders, and 6 days after plaintiff's presented the groundwork of their case] b4 13/39

    [ 11/07/1922 Purkitt elected as Glenn Superior Court Judge, defeating Judge Bell?]

    [ 11/13/1922 E.T. Eriksen, sworn at tr. p. 91, vol. 2, 9 pages after he started testifying]
    112322 F Disclaimer of Leonard Gollnick b4 13/39

    1923

    [ 01/01/1923 Claude F. Purkitt took office of Superior Court Judge, Glenn County Superior Court, presumably this First Monday in January. 01/1930 articles say he defeated Judge Bell for it. Verify? ]

    [ 01/05/1923 first mention of George E. McCutchen in Westlaw, defending a red-light abatement case]

    011623 F Amendment to Amended Complaint, paragraphs Va - Vk unsigned?
  • 012788 Exhibit A, Water Claim, south side, SCIC 15000 inches
  • 051588 Exhibit B, Water Claim, south side, SCIC 15000 inches
  • 061600 Exhibit C, Notice of Appropriation of Water, south side, SCIC 100,000 inches
  • 051604 Exhibit D, Scearce agreement (Mary J. Scearce, W.E. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce, Mabel Scearce)
  • 050904 Exhibit E, Hall agreement (Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, C.M. Hall0
  • 032305 Exhibit ?, 2nd Hall agreement
  • 091407 Exhibit F, SCIC $1 option to USA Agreement
    - 091407 Affidavit of Charles L. Donohoe, Secty of SCIC, reciting SCIC Board resolution approving option to USA
  • 050109 Exhibit G, Deed SCIC to USA, subject to Towle, Scearce, & 2 Hall agreements
  • 050497 Exhibit H, Water Notice, north side, Thos. Brown 10,000 inches,
  • 091100 Exhibit I, Notice of Appropriation of Water, north side, Thos. Brown (Lemon Home) 10,000 inches,
  • 092707 Exhibit J, Lemon Home $1 option to USA Agreement
    - 091407 Affidavit of Thomas Brown , Secty of Lemon Home, reciting Board resolution approving option to USA
  • 032609 Exhibit K, Indenture Lemon Home to USA
  • 101222 acknowledgment of service of Amendment to 13 attorneys, "It is certified that copies hereof were also furnished to C.L. Witten and Brown & Alberry who failed to make these endorsements reason by inadvertence, /s/ Oliver P. Morton [handwriting unclear, may be errors] b6 Large Brown Envelope #1 (see also b4 27/39) -

    011623 F S Stipulation for Amendment of Amended Complaint - Amendment to Amended Complaint (adds Sections Va through Vk; Exhibits A through K, reciting Water Claims and Notices, agreements with Stony Creek Irrigation Company, Company resolutions, Deed to Reclamation, Lemon Home Agreement & Board Resolution & Sale Indenture to Reclamation) b4 27/39 (see also b6 Large Brown Envelope #1) --
  • Exhibit "A" Stony Creek Irrigation company, claims 15000 inches 01/27/1888
  • Exhibit "B" Stony Creek Irrigation company, claims 15000 inches 05/18/1888
  • Exhibit "C" Stony Creek Irrigation company, claims 100000 inches 06/16/1890
  • Exhibit "D" Agreement 05/16/1904 Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mary J. Scearce, W.R. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce and Mabel Scearce
  • Exhibit "E" Agreement 05/09/1904 Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall and C.M. Hall heirs and distributees of the estate of A.L. Hall, deceased Scearce, W.R. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce and Mabel Scearce
  • [Attached to Exhibit "E"?] Agreement 03/23/1905 Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall and C.M. Hall heirs and distributees of the estate of A.L. Hall, deceased Scearce, W.R. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce and Mabel Scearce
  • Exhibit "F" Agreement 09/14/1907 Stony Creek Irrigation Company and the United States of America
  • Exhibit "G" Agreement 05/21/1909 Stony Creek Irrigation Company and the United States of America
  • Exhibit "H" Water Notice 05/04/1897 10,000 inches Thomas Brown
  • Exhibit "I" Notice of Appropriation of Water 09/11/1900 10,000 inches Thomas Brown
  • Exhibit "J" Agreement 09/27/1907 Lemon Home Water Power & Light Company and United States of America
  • [attached to Exhibit "J"] Affidavit of Resolution 09/27/1907 by Board of Directors Lemon Home Water Power & Light Company
  • Exhibit "K" Indenture 03/26/19XX [gap in the transcribed text] Lemon Home Water Power & Light Company and United States of America

    051623 F Replication to Answer of Defendant Annie Hoever b5 26/39 -
    051623 F Replication to Answer of Defendant James Mills Orchard Corporation b5 26/39 --
    060723 F S Stipulation as to replications to answers of defendants Joseph M. Billiou et al., Esperanza Land Corp., R.T. Jones, Andrew Kaiser, and Sacramento Sugar Company;
  • attached: Replication to the Answer of Defendant Annie Hoever, Replication to Answer of James Mills Orchard Corporation b5 26/39 - 1-217

    [Judge Van Fleet Died 09/03/1923 ]

    1924

    [Judge Kerrigan appointment confirmed 01/28/1924]

    022524 F Amended Answer of Defendants James Mills Orchards Corporation and Esperanza Land Corporation to the Amended Complaint Herein [one page, some kind of deal?, other downstream Underflow Users disclaiming below? more likely they got suckered by Morton telling them not to worry about it, these were the only diversions intended; see protest of SWRCB precedessor #2212 093025, by then Freeman was dead and Chickering and Gregory represented them but this answer was not withdrawn for some reason, possibly because the case was considered closed 08/28/1924 ] b5 26/39 -
    033124 F Praecipe for subpoenas for M.E. Ready and W.T. Clarke to testify on behalf of plaintiff b5 26/39
    040424 F Subpoena W.T. Clarke 04/03/1924, return attached b5 26/39 Civil Docket 12066
    040424 F Subpoena M.E. Ready 04/03/1924, return attached b5 26/39 Civil Docket 12066

    [04/13/1924 Lawyer Frank Freeman died, represented the Lower Stony Creek Underflow Defendants plus more defendants than any other lawyer , Willows Journal, California State Library History Collection microfilm, 04/14/1924 ]

    052324 Letter Morton to Clerk enclosing praecipe for subpoena for S.G. Bennett, City Engineer of Oxnard, for 06/04/1924 b5 26/39
    052424 F Praecipe for subpoena for witness for plaintiff S.G. Bennett b5 26/39
    060524 F Subpoena S.G. Bennett 06/04/1924 (Judge John S. Partridge) copy b5 26/39
    060524 F Subpoena S.G. Bennett 06/04/1924 (Judge John S. Partridge) return attached b5 26/39 Marshal's Civil Docket No. 5901
    060524 F Disclaimer of Defendant R.T. Bedford b5 26/39
    060524 F Disclaimer of Defendant Jos. M. Billiou b5 26/39
    060324 F Disclaimer of Defendant Annie Hoever b4 27/39
    060524 F Disclaimer of Defendant R.T. Jones b5 26/39
    060324 F Disclaimer of Defendant Andrew Kaiser [found 04/14/2009] b4 27/39
    060724 F Notice to Appoint Attorney (Master to C.L.Simpson and R.M. Hardin, your attorney Frank Freeman died, get another one, with returns on notice) b4 27/39
    061024 F Disclaimer of Sacramento Valley Sugar Company b4 27/39
    061824 F Disclaimer of Defendant Z.E. Simpson b4 27/39
    070724 F Notice to Appoint Attorney (Master to C.L.Simpson and R.M. Hardin, your attorney Frank Freeman died, get another one, with returns on notice) b4 27/39
    070724 F Notice to Appoint Attorney (Master to E.H. Tryon, your attorney Wm. E. Kollmyer died, get another one; with return on Notice) b4 27/41
    080724 Order Fixing Date of Hearing, Willows, 08/21/1924 (resumption, George E. Mccutchen) b4 37/39
    081124 F Praecipe, subpoenas to attend 08/22/24 Ed. E. Smith, R.G. Stites, B5 25/39
    081624 Order Fixing Date of Hearing (resumption, George E. McCutchen) List of 13 lawyers on McCutchen 08/12/1924 Affidavit of Mailing, Marshal return attached for Tryon and Harding, Marshal note inside 08/18/1924 b4 37/39 - Civil docket 12066
    081924 F Subpoena, Ed. E. Smith, R.G. Stites, return attached (Judge John S. Partridge) b5 25/39 Civil Docket 12066
    082524 F Amendment to Amended Complaint (Vl - Vr, Grindstone Indian Reservation) with acknowledgements from defendants' solicitors attached (Sterling J. Carr, U.S. Attorney, Oliver P. Morton, Special Assistant) b5 25/39 -- 304138-1
    082524 F Issue subpoena to F.M. Kesselring to attend 08/24/1924 (Judge John S. Partridge) b5 25/39

    [Transcript vol. 24, 08/28/1924 "MR. MORTON: ...may have to ask for a very brief session as to certain matters that are pending on stipulation, and as to one or two other details.
    "THE MASTER: ...subject to an application to reopen the matter on those grounds, as I understand you, the plaintiff's case may be considered closed at this time."]

    082924 F Subpoena, F.M. Kesselring, return attached b5 25/39 MD 12524
    091124 Letter Morton to Clerk, S.G. Bennett's mileage to Willows as a witness [06/05/1924], reimb? Also, John F. Truesdell, Special Assistant to the Attorney General is relieving Oliver P. Morton on Angle as of 09/01/1924 b5 25/39
    102924 F S Stipulation, Chas. M. Hall & Gertrude G. Hall in relation to the Stony Creek Irrigation Company agreements and deed, "confirmed" the previous agreements, but then changed the limit within them to "requirement to be gauged by the maximum requirement of similar lands under the Orland project," making it roughly 4.05 a-f/acre instead of 1,198 a-f each, but subject to the pp. 143 & 142 Loophole? - so Judge Karlton was right and the Court of Appeals was wrong? tricky language, Morton suckered them?; /s/ Morton for USA, /s/ John S. Partridge, Judge b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 --

    1925

    [ Doc 75, water master declaration p. 2: "Hearings were held in Sacramento in 1925 and Oliver P. Morton was retained to represent Orland Unit Water Users' Association in this adjudication suit." RECORD OF THIS IS MISSING]

    [ 02/13/1925 Judge J.E. Woolley issues his 79 page Herminghaus Opinion; 03/06/1925 Judge J.E. Woolley issues his Herminghaus Judgment; 04/13/1925 Judge J.E. Woolley denies new Herminghaus trial;
  • I have purchased photocopies of 4 of these Herminghaus documents, that is, the Opinion and Judgment plus the two briefs later in 1925, from the California State Archives, 1020 "O" Street - 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, 916/653-2385; for the Herminghaus case, California Supreme Court Case #S.F. No. 11630 In Bank.-- 12/24/1926, State Archives file number 25814; Fresno Superior Court was unable to furnish any of these dates so the Archives were the best source; if asked, I can furnish a photocopy of these, or place them upon my web site as corrected OCR transcriptions with my Declaration as to authenticity. Portions of the Judgment were excluded from the pages actually delivered to me by the Archives so I would need to return and re-purchase the missing pages. I did not purchase the Findings dated 03/06/1925, or the denial of new trial ]

    [ 09/30/1925 Protest of James Mills Orchard Corporation filed in Reclamation SWRCB predecessor Application #2212 for Stony Gorge, lands are riparian, uses underflow; also protest, same nature, of Esperanza Land Corporation, both from Chickering & Gregory, San Francisco ]

    100825 F Copy of Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Co. with Mary J. Scearce et al., Dated: 05/16/1904, typed on back (no blue cover) filed to correct error in reporter's transcript, slot for Special Master sig.? [no file stamp] b4 37/39

    101225 - 101825 21 burnt orange post office registered mail return receipts, to Harold Baxter b4 13/39
    101325 F Notice of Motion for 11/02/1925, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom, Sacramento; Affidavit (of service) typed on inside of blue cover, served by registered mail "persons named in the within Notice of Motion as attorneys for defendants and defendants...." b5 24/39 -
    101325 F Affidavit in Support of Motion for Order, Harold Baxter b5 24/39 -
    101325 F Motion for Order [to 13 attorneys & 6 pro per] (Plaintiff, to require Special Master George E. McCutchen to appear and show cause why he should not return...Report of Special Master hereto annexed....) ; b5 20/39; attached:
  • Affidavit in Support of Motion for Order, /s/ Harold Baxter
  • (Draft) Report of Special Master in - Chancery [pp. 15 - 18 is an earlier, cruder shot at knocking out all riparian rights in the watershed], makes his [earlier, draft] Findings of Fact, with 5 blueprint sheets of "Schedule of Water Rights in Stony Creek Watershed", "prepared by affiant"; p. 6 out of order, at end ) /s/ Harold Baxter, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Phoenix, 10/10/1925 - see disposition 11/02/1925 below. [mentions as special assistants to The Attorney General, Oliver P. Morton, John F. Turesdell, and Harold Baxter] [Where did Baxter get substituted in as attorney of record? not found in Equity Docket Book] [ This shows a much clearer Hall & Scearce entitlement at top of schedule 5 than the later Findings draft, but was modified by the 10/29/1924 stip for Hall and the 04/02/1926 stip for Scearce - making this 1,198 a-f wrong for Hall but still correct for Scearce until the stip 6 months later - stip confirming the previous agreement but redefining meanings including that the "requirement to be gauged by the maximum requirement of similar lands under the Orland project", making it roughly 4.05 a-f/acre instead of 1,198 a-f each, depending on "comparable project lands and the pp. 143 & 142 Loophole? - so Judge Karlton was right and the Court of Appeals was wrong?]; b5 20/39 --

    [ 10/19/1925 Harold Baxter and James F. Lawton signed & 10/22/1925 filed 76 page California Supreme Court brief as amicus curiae in support of Appellants in Herminghaus]

    [Equity Docket Book:
    1925
    11/02 Mo for order denied; Oliver P. Morton allowed to appear herein as amicus Curea [sic] ]

    [11/17/1925 Opinion & Order, SWRCB predecessor approved Reclamation Application #2212, Decision D-83 allowing 50,200 a-f diversion and storage in Stony Gorge; Richard J. Coffey for Reclamation]

    [11/19/1925 Richard J. Coffey signed & 11/30/1925 Coffey filed 129 page Herminghaus brief with California Supreme Court, an encyclopaedic survey of riparian rights in the U.S. with a plea to the Court to set aside California's riparian law and adopt the "reasonable and beneficial" limitations of other western states, joined by Irrigation District Association of California and 35 individual irrigation districts including signed by Hankins and Hankins for GCID]

    [12/30/1925 Coffey withdrew his name from Herminghaus brief with California Supreme Court, brief position conflicts with Mr. Baxter's Federal Power brief - pretty obvious DOJ and Reclamation not communicating very well]

    1926

    [01/26/1926 Herminghaus case argued before California Supreme Court]

    [02/25/1926 Order vacating the submission and reopening the case, served on the solicitors of all parties by mail that day, with a copy of the (Mr. Sheridan's) application therefor; contents of application unknown, with notice of hearing 03/23/1926 - MISSING - tr v. 26 pp. 4703,4,5]:

    031226 F Answer of Defendants Emma Retzloff & George Retzloff b4 13/39
    031226 F Assent to Stipulation in Settlement of Pleadings, Emma Retzloff, George Retzloff b4 13/39

    [03/25/1926 hearings resume; these hearings were much more comprehensive than provided for at the 1924 "submission"; they read into the record property descriptions for all disclaimer and pro confesso defendants; were they trying to do an end-run on Herminghaus in case it was upheld, at least to support a claim to the rights taken from defaulters?]

    032526 F Stipulation 110419 Stip, George R. Freeman for Mrs. L.R. BROWNELL, R.H. Brownell, I.L. Brownell b4 13/39
    032626 Disclaimer of D.A. Brown b4 13/39
    040226 F S Stipulation (Olive Scearce Parsons, W.E. Scearce and Mary J. Scearce as to the meaning of the Stony Creek Irrigation Company agreement & deed, etc.) /s/ Frank N. [sic] Kerrigan, Judge" [ Judge Kerrigan's first link with the case in the archives ]; "confirmed" the previous agreements, but then changed the limit within them to "requirement to be gauged by the maximum requirement of similar lands under the Orland project," making it roughly 4.05 a-f/acre instead of 1,198 a-f each but subject to the pp. 143 & 142 Loophole? - so the Court of Appeals was wrong?;, tricky language, Morton suckered them?; b6 Large Brown Envelope #1 -- for USA Ethelbert Ward, William C. Matthews; for Reclamation, R.C.E Weber, Superintendent, in charge of Orland Project; William E. Johnson & R.M. Rankin for all Olive, W.E. & Mary J.; & Olive Scearce Parsons for herself
    040226 F S Stipulation (Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District)(keeping the agreement but modifying some of its terms, It is so ordered: /s/ Frank N. [sic] Kerrigan, Judge") b4 13/39 -- 304137-1
    041226 F Assent to Stipulation Re Settlement of Pleadings (Hankins & Hankins for GCID) b4 13/39
    041226 F Assent to Stipulation Re Settlement of Pleadings (Thomas Rutledge for 14 defendants) b4 13/39
    041226 F Assent to Stipulation Re Settlement of Pleadings (C.L. Witten for J.E. Ayer) b4 13/39

    [ 04/19/1926 Second mention of George E. McCutchen in Westlaw, bankruptcy case? Faulty record on appeal? Verify?]

    042726 Letter William C. Matthews to clerk, appearing for USA b4 13/39

    [07/29/1926 Herminghaus case re-argued before California Supreme Court]

    [12/24/1926 HERMINGHAUS decided by California Supreme Court, public furor leading to 11/06/1928 Constitutional Amendment]

    1927


    [03/03/1927 third mention of George E. McCutchen in Westlaw, defending a pimping charge ]

    [09/01/1927 FALL RIVER decided by California Supreme Court ]

    [10/06/1927 Herminghaus before U.S. Supreme Court, cert. dismissed as improvidently granted]

    122727 Letter William C. Matthews to McCutchen, he's moving b4 13/39
    122927 Letter Oliver P. Morton asking Clerk about two 1922 orders [was he working on the Angle brief?] b4 13/39

    1928

    041928 F DECREE BOOK ( Plaintiff's Opening Brief , Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decree; see 04/14/1930 for Corrected Decree ), all prepared by plaintiff (Brief, p. 5 for instance), filed with George E. McCutchen, Special Master (noted on outside back cover of 1928 Draft Decree book) [brief, findings and decree based on argument and erroneous prediction that California riparian law is wrong and will not stand, brief dismissive of Herminghaus & Fall River, the 70 page brief including a 20 page rant on California Riparian rights] b2

    [brief was signed by: B.M. Parmenter, Assistant Attorney General, G.A. Iverson & Oliver P. Morton, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, Solicitors for Plaintiff; Of Counsel: Richard J. Coffey, District Counsel, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

    At p. 19 of the brief is the first of 3 references (pp. 19-21, 35-36, 47-48) to a case: "In United States of America v. Truckee River General Electric Company et al., the Government initiated an adjudication of the relative rights to the waters of the Truckee River in the Federal Court for the Nevada District. Service of original process was had upon some six hundred defendants, if the writer of this brief, who was identified with the proceeding on the Government's side, remembers correctly,..." The case with that name was actually from the same District as Angle, settled to Consent Decree setting the Floriston [flow] Rates in 1915 (and currently assigned to Judge KARLTON) [ADD CASE NUMBER]. The case with the fact pattern of the 3 references in Angle was actually United States v. Orr Water Ditch, et al. with which both Mr. Coffey and Mr. Morton were associated in some manner. (Truckee River General Electric case was originally a an action condemning for the Reclamation the Dam at the Truckee River exit of Lake Tahoe, USA v. Floriston Pulp and Paper Company, et al., No. 14861, U.S.Circuit Court, Ninth Circuit, Northern District of California, USA petitioned to substitute Truckee River General Electric Company as defendant 06/03/1915, Renumbered S-643 and then 2:68-cv-00643-LKK ? dockdet sheet shows "1968, 2-9 Rcd complete file from Northern District of California. Certified copy of Order of Transfere [sic]. Clerk's Certificate of Transfere. (S.F. Case # 14,861 ), paper docket to Doc #47; most recent electronic docket Doc. #21 01/07/2009 ; numbers on outside of file 732706 Box #1 021-90-0078 305623 #1 ; loose t/l to FRC inside file, Records Center Location Number 732706-733178 )

    On 03/18/2009 I skimmed through much of the pre-1930 portions of the Orr Water Ditch files in Reno continuing an effort to learn who wrote the Angle brief. Truckee River General Electric was a defendant in that case as well. With the few hours I had available, I did not find the procedural stipulation in Orr Water Ditch mentioned at p. 20 of the Angle brief, but did find one like it dated 06/01/1925. Mr. Morton did witness examination or cross examination for plaintiff on 10/15/1919 and may have on other dates (8500 pages of transcripts, without indexed or other counsel identification except when they speak without asking a question), and his name was typed as "District Counsel, Reclamation Service" on most Replies to Answers. Did he forget the name of the case over the next 8 years?

    Mr. Coffey's name appears at least once in the Orr Ditch files in a 09/04/1925 letter as having been in conference with George Springmeyer, United States Attorney for District of Nevada, regarding objections to the Special Master's findings. Since he wasn't "hands-on", it may be likely that the autobiographical reference on p. 19 of the Angle Brief is to Mr. Coffey, which ties in with the nature of his work on the Herminghaus brief, and thus it may be safe to conclude that the Angle brief was mostly his and is a sequel to his Herminghaus brief. Special Master McCutchen's 11/07/1929 report Section III recites how the case lagged after Mr. Morton left in 1924 (09/11/1924 letter), and Section V how it got going again after he was reassigned back to the case in 05/1929 13 months after the date Mr. McCutchen wrote "filed" on the Decree Book (including brief). Yet, Mr. Morton was around 03/25/1926 as an amicus in that hearing, and 12/29/1927 following up on court orders.

    The answer is likely that they drafted the Decree Book together:

    VOL XIX 1928, 05/1928 , NEW RECLAMATION ERA (Reclamation house magazine) p. 79, "Reclamation Organization Activities and Project Visitors": "Associate Engineer E.T. Eriksen and Supt. R.C.E. Weber, Orland project, spent several days at San Francisco in conference with District Counsel Coffey and Oliver P. Morton, special assistant to the Attorney General, in connection with the preparation of the Government's opening brief in the Stony Creek water right adjudication suit." http://www.archive.org/stream/newreclamationer19unitrich/newreclamationer19unitrich_djvu.txt - this is a crude OCR scan of the text; to see the actual, but hard to read text delete the last piece of the URL, making it http://www.archive.org/stream/newreclamationer19unitrich , and then use the arrows on the right side of that page to get to May, and then find p. 79 within May. ]

    And then in Morton's 070629 letter Mr. Morton seems to take sole personal credit for the Decree's language, top of p. 2 of that letter, at least that provision of it. ]

    042328 F Report of Water Commissioner for 09/1922, ground water not yet bounced back from extreme drouth of 2 years ago, so stream flow not as high as expected at beginning of season, transit losses normal b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    042328 F Reports of Water Commissioner for June, July, 08/1922; May, June, July, August, 09/1923; 06/1922 reported snow pack highest in 15 years, East Park filled by middle of May, May transit losses very small, 07/1922 transit losses low, 08/1922 losses high at beginning of month & low at end; 06/1923 transit losses low, 07/1923 flow lower than any since 1920, necessary to rotate and hold down diversions, transit losses moderate, August transit losses high mid-month, September losses moderate b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    042328 F Reports of Water Commissioner for April, [May], 06/1924 runoff lowest in our record-keeping history, 3500 a-f to East Park lifting it to 12,150 a-f by beginning of April, 35,000 a-f runoff for Stony, April transit loss high, considerable May return flows of defendant diversions, end of May transit losses very high, June drouth most severe on record in Sacramento Valley, East Park storage exhausted by mid-June, monitored diversions carefully and cut some of them down, transit loss very high b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    042328 F Reports of Water Commissioner for July, August, 09/1925, 07/17/1925 116 degrees F. at Orland, August transit losses normal b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    042328 F Reports of Water Commissioner for 06/1925, extreme drouth of 1924 broken on 10/04/1924, thereafter rainfall excessive, East Park over the Spillway 02/25/1925; May, June, July, August, 09/1926, March Dry, April not, East Park filled by the middle of April, July transit loss normal, b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    042328 F Reports of Water Commissioner for July, August, 09/1927, more abundant than 1926, which was also ample b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -

    [ 08/20/1928 Fourth mention of George E. McCutchen in Westlaw, sale of sheep, venue problem ]

    090428 GCID Proposed Amendments to Proposed findings and Judgment [not "filed"] b4 36/39 -

    [11/06/1928 California voters adopt changes to Constitution making riparian rights subject to "reasonable and beneficial" limits]

    [ 11/23/1928 Fifth mention of George E. McCutchen in Westlaw, first of a blizzard of fraud cases against Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. which was peddling somewhat worthless land to immigrants in Minnesota, etc., describing it as deep bottom land well suited to fruit orchards; Westlaw shows 61 cases for Mr. McCutchen of which 41 were Fruit Lands; of the 61, in only one did he appear alone.]

    120628 F S (by Geo. McCutchen) Order Fixing Date for Further Hearing as 02/05/29 Willows ; McCutchen Affidavit of Mailing 15 lawyers b4 13/39 -

    1929

    UNDATED Brief of Defendant J.E. Ayer [gives new meaning to the word "brief"] b4 37/39

    [01/1929 , NEW RECLAMATION ERA (Reclamation house magazine), Volume XX p. 14, R. J. Coffey, District Counsel article: "Riparian Rights in California", discussing California riparian law since Lux v. Haggin including Herminghaus and the resulting 1928 California Constitutional Amendment. http://www.archive.org/stream/newreclamationer20unitrich/newreclamationer20unitrich_djvu.txt - see note at 05/1928 above on looking at this web site ]

    010129 R.M. Rankin, Brief and Objections to Proposed Findings and Decree by Certain Defendants Represented by R.M . Rankin, Solicitor, Exhibit M, Doc #144 in 1990 - this makes it obvious DOJ has a historical file parallel to the Angle Archives - a copy of the BROWNELL protest is appended to that Exhibit M for unknown reason

    020529 Protest by L.E. BROWNELL, R.H. BROWNELL, D.L. Brownell, Mrs. L.R. Brownell [typewritten but very faint and hard to read or copy: Proposed Findings and Decree incorrect under Herminghaus decision; professionally drafted?] b4 37/39 , also, with typed signature, Exhibit M, Doc #144 in 1990 ; all 4 signatures identical and resemble attorney George Freeman's handwriting;

    02??29 note in 07/06/1929 letter to Mr. Rankin, "You announced at the unfinished February hearing," [if this is 02/1929, then TRANSCRIPT MISSING]

    052929 F S Order Appointing Water Commissioner, Vice E.T. Eriksen, R.C.E Weber is appointed in place of Eriksen (Judge Kerrigan) B6 B1M/12M
    060329 F Oath as Water Commissioner (R.C.E. Weber) b4 27/39
    060629 F Reports of Water Commissioner, June, July, August, 09/1928 (loose, unstapled); June, stream flow diminished early this season; September, water master reports of diversions not meant to be determinative of requirements of the lands of defendants b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    060829 Letter Morton to Clerk, enclosed Water Commissioner Reports for 1928 b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -
    061029 F Reports of Water Commissioner, June, 09/1928 (loose, unstapled) b6 Large Brown Envelope #2

    061729 F S Stipulation cancelling substuting Edith McGahan, in that W.A. Morris filed an answer & submitted proof (This series of stipulations from R.M. Rankin 1927 & 1928, all signed by Judge Kerrigan 06/1929?) b5 24/39
    061729 F S Stipulation for Substitution of W.H. Stites (Judge Kerrigan) b5 24/39
    061729 F S Stipulation for Substitution of Charles H. Ridley (Judge Kerrigan) b5 24/39
    061729 F S Stipulation for Substitution of Harvey E. Provence (Judge Kerrigan) b5 24/39 -
    061729 F S Stipulation for Substitution of M.G. Bedford (Judge Kerrigan) b5 24/39

    070629 Letter Oliver P. Morton to R.M. Rankin, re 01/01/1929 Brief - Exhibit N Doc #144 1990 - [from this resubmittal 71 years later, it's pretty obvious DOJ has its own historical files that parallel the Angle Archives]

    081729 Petition, Morton, set aside pro confesso for Stonyford Catholic Church, etc. b5 25/39
    081929 F Petition by Plaintiff, to set aside order pro confesso for Stonyford Catholic Church and add findings of rights b5 26/39
    082029 Order Fixing Date of Hearing, 09/18/1929 (Mr. McCutchen) b5 25/39 -
    082229 F Petition, George W. Sutliff, Bruce H. Sutliff, Emily A. Sutliff, Ellis A. Sutliff and Laura Bell Griffith, to set aside orders pro confesso and accept answer (never served, evidence was presented in their behalf anyway, etc.), water rights priority in Exhibit A; Affidavit of Bruce H. Sutliff on Application for Order Setting Aside Decree Pro Confesso; Answer of Defendants Bruce H. Sutliff, Ellis A. Sutliff, Emily A. Sutliff, Laura Bell Griffith and G.W. Sutliff; b5 26/39
    082329 Empty envelope to H.T. Hiatt, Esq., returned b5 25/39
    090329 Letter Morton to Clerk enclosing stipulations signed by Judge Kerrigan: Thomas Fairlee for Preston Morris and John M. Morris; assent to general stip by Sutliff group b5 26/39
    090529 F S Stipulation to general stip, Sutliff group (Judge Kerrigan, all sigs undated, filing date is 09/05) b5 26/39
    090529 F Substitution of Defendant Thomas Fairlee in Place of Defendants Preston Morris and John M. Morris dated 12/29/1927 (Judge Kerrigan sig undated) b5 26/39

    [09/18/1929 last hearing before Special Master, For Plaintiff: Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Richard J. Coffey, Esq. For Defendants: R.M. Rankin, Esq., H.W. McGowan, Esq.; in propria persona: R.H. BROWNELL]

    UNDATED The Settlement of the Findings - Amendments Made in Printed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Suggested Decree, 09/18/1929 transcript b6 17T/20T

    [Crash of 1929, 10/24, 28, & 29]

    103129 F Assent to General Stipulation for defendant C.L. Simpson b5 24/39
    103129 F Assent to General Stipulation for defendants C.H. Glenn and Tim O'Leary b5 24/39
    110129 Letter Morton to Clerk, enclosing general stip A.M. McCoy for Gertrude C. Hall b5 24/39

    110529 F Assent to General Stipulation by Defendant Gertrude C. Hall (A.M. McCoy) b5 24/39
    110529 F Assent to General Stipulation by Defendant O.F. Bickford, Henry Chastain, Alvin Gollnick, John O Johansen, Lucy Kimel, Frank Whalley, A. Conklin, M.L. Conklin, Wells Conklin, Carl Green, John Harbison, Ellen Lucas, L.E. Mann, G.W. Markham, Charles H. Ridley, Mary J. Scearce, W.H. Stites, Marguerita Williams Welch, F.C. Wood, Henry Werth and May E. Werth, 20 R.M. Rankin defendants, b5 24/39
    110529 F Acknowledgment of Service of opening brief, 13 solicitors signed, some illegible, no typewritten names 04/20/28 - 04/28/28 plus Retzloff's in pro per (but no BROWNELLs ) b5 24/39 -

    110529 F S Stipulation re admission, notice of water appropriation Carl L. Mensing (actually, Carl Green) [ Judge Frank H. Norcross, from Carson City ] b5 24/39
    110529 F S Stipulation as to introduction of missing deed, Thomas Brown to Lemon Home Water Power and Light Company 07/30/1900 [ Judge Frank H. Norcross, from Carson City ] b5 24/39
    110529 F S Stipulation as to Stock Water Between Plaintiff and Defendant L. Huffmaster [ Judge Frank H. Norcross, from Carson City ] b5 24/39

    110729 F Report of Special Master Pro Hac Vice (listing accompanying documents & exhibits) [dismissive of BROWNELL's point without specifically mentioning what it was, not addressing the BROWNELLs' Herminghaus issue: "The protest of L.E.BROWNELL, R.H.BROWNELL, I.L.BROWNELL and MRS. L.R. BROWNELL, presented by them in propriae personae, which is attached to and filed with this report, was ruled upon adversely [but not in open hearing, and not with any written notice found in the archives], it being the view and opinion of your Special Master, after examination of the matter, that the point of claim made therein is not well taken." I have found no indication this Report or "ruling" was ever served on the BROWNELLs or anyone else] [I have found no indication of any face-to-face or letter contact between McCutchen and ANY judge regarding this Report or at any other time, no questions, no answers, no explanations, no nothing. Who was supervising McCutchen's activities?] [ pretty obvious that even at this late date a Judge had not been "assigned" to Mr. McCutchen's knowledge. He entitled his report "To the Honorable Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:" ; were cases "assigned" in those days?] b5 24/39 --

    123129 Notice of Motion for 01/13/1929 [Yup. That's what it says, wrong year] 10:00 a.m. at the Court room in Sacramento to adopt report of Special Master, Findings, and make and enter its Decree (Notice attached to 01/03/1930 Affidavit) b5 24/39

    1930

    010330 F Affidavit of Mailing, 11 attorneys, 7 pro per including BROWNELLs,
  • attached Notice of Motion to adopt everything on 01/13/1929 [yup, wrong year], list [date = filing stamp] [10 days notice by mail, jackrabbit timing, isn't that a bit short?] b5 24/39 -
    010630 F Reports of Water Commissioner, May and June, July, August, September, 10/1929 ; rainfall 2/3 normal, March, April & May especially low, low runoff, 2 reservoirs at less than 1/2 capacity, storage moved to Stony Gorge to reduce evaporation; Reclamation acquired lands of Gatliff, Johannsen, True, Bayley, and A.M. Gollnick for Stony Gorge b6 Large Brown Envelope #2 -

    [ 01/11/1930 Glenn County Superior Court Judge Claude F. Purkitt died of stroke (age 54?); Former California State Senator and head of the California Democratic Party ( Judge 01/01/1923 ? to now ), funeral the largest in Glenn County history, southbound train held for 10 minutes to let the procession pass; succeeded as judge by Robert M. Rankin appointed by Governor Young on 02/27/1930 ; Willows Journal, microfilm, California State Library History Collection, 01/11, 14, 15, 27, 29, 02/04, 07, 12, 13, 26, 02/27/1930 among others ]

    [ 01/12/1930 heaviest snow storm in decades, 3" at Willows, 6" and 19 degrees F at Stonyford, storm continued until 01/14 (Willows Journal, 01/12/1930) - note impassable roads comment of water master for these rural roads in 1942 Report ; roads west of Orland remained unpaved until late 1950s; all this irrelevant unless you were a defendant (like BROWNELL) trying to get to a hearing in Sacramento which had been noticed with the wrong year anyway. Storm lasted 3 days 01/12 - 01/14/1930 ]

    011330 F S Order (Sutliff family, vacate order pro confesso and declare right in Exhibit "A", attached) [prepared in advance by McGowan?] b5 24/39 -
    011330 F S Order (Morton blue cover: vacate order pro confesso against Stonyford Catholic Church, declare water right in Exhibit "A" attached) [prepared in advance by Morton] b5 24/39 -
    011330 F S Proceedings and Order [parepared by Morton. In advance?] [THIS IS NOT MARKED ON ITS FACE AS AN ORDER OR ANYTHING ELSE although Judge Kerrigan signed it. Title is handwritten on back of Morton blue cover in the Clerk's hand. Is the title the Clerk's title? Mr. Morton never had a problem labelling his pleadings in the past, why now?], narrative of hearing, Morton & Coffey for plaintiffs, McGowen for Sutliff family, both stipulations (orders, actually) apparently ready in advance, one by him, one by McGowan ; ordered findings adopted, payments authorized, received (or was offered?) printed decree, which happened to bear his typeset name and the typeset date he was to sign it (?) and signed that decree
    [SO WHERE IS THE SIGNED DECREE?], etc.
    [this may be the closest thing there is to a transcript, and if so, BROWNELLs' protest and Herminghaus do not seem to have been considered by Judge Kerrigan. Note this filing says the decree was signed and filed the same day it was heard as were the stipulations; it also says that in the hearing the printed decree was offered to Judge Kerrigan for his convenience in adopting the Decree - had he not read it? was this filing an anticipatory draft? and thus what is said here is not what actually happened? did the decree not actually get signed as it said it did? and not delivered printed until after the hearing? was this a "sign-here", clerical hearing?]
    [ This case started with 15 defense attorneys. Some died, some got appointed to Judgeships, many got settled out in one way or another including by side-agreements that never made it to the record, so that by the time this hearing was held, only one appeared, if that (only word to that effect is on the so-called "Proceedings and Order"), and in his case on behalf of only one family. The Angle case was like a modern class action, but with no one to represent the interests of the class ( and nobody to represent the watershed). Nowadays, see for instance in Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) (p. __), which is one of the Orr Ditch cases, a group of defendants this large would have a lead counsel appointed. In the Angle case, the Government picked off defense counsels one by one until no one was left standing to speak for the class. Hence, rather than a Decree tempered in the crucible of adversarial proceedings, the Decree was a one-sided whitewash.] b5 24/39 -

    [the final printing shows Judge Kerrigan's typeset name, not his signature, and still had unfilled blanks; see after 04/15/1930 for first actual signature, and then only to the corrections? ]

    [Equity Docket Book:
    01/03/1930 Filed motion to approve report & affid of mailing
    6 Filed Reports of Water Comm for season of 1929
    13 Filed Order vacating pro confesso, etc. ENTERED (B1 - p. 489)
    - Filed Order vacating pro confesso, etc. ENTERED (B1 - p. 490)
    - Filed Proceedings & order. ENTERED (B1 - p. 404)
    - Filed Decree. ENTERED
    - Made & filed Enrolled papers
    - Docket [?] ]

    [ 02/12/1930 printed Decree received by Attorney McGowan, shared with Willows Daily Journal ]

    040530 F Notice and Petition with Affidavit of Service; appoint water master, fix dates for installing structures, correct decree errors; Affidavit of Mailing, 11 attorneys [including Judge Rankin? why?] and 7 pro per b5 21/39 -- 304138
    041530 F S Order Re: Appointment of Water Master to Carry Out Provisions of the Decree, Fixing His compensation, Providing a Fund for the Payment Therof and Apportioning the costs in the Premises - Also Fixing a Date for the Installation of Head Gates and/or Measuring Devices and Correcting Certain Minor Errors in Decree, Morton b4 27/39 -- 304138-1

    [The Decree bears his signature at the end of the following hand printing: "The within volumne [sic] has been corrected to accord with the order of 04/14/1930, /s/ Frank N [H looks like an N] Kerrigan, Judge"; this seems to be his first and only signature on the decree; above that is only a printed name in the signature block]

    042330 F Oath of Water Master b5 21/39 -- 304138


    In Box2 with transcripts:
    1928 Decree Book
    1930 Corrected Decree, Judge Kerrigan's signature line is printed, not signed; also typeset: "Done in Open court, this 13th Day of Jan., 1930"; copy has Judge Kerrigan's signature to the 4/14/30 correction (copy is worn and ragged around the edges), b2 Expanding file

    In Box 6:
    Dog-eared copy of Decree, corrected version, missing many pages, b6 A1M/12M

    6. 1918 - 1930 EXHIBITS - boxes


    Exhibits are very poorly marked; * = make copy

    [ MISSING Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification, Tr p. 9 Map marked "Orland Project" ]
    [ MISSING Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for identification, Tr p. 13 map marked "Stony Creek Watershed" ]

    Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 - Blank form, "Form B, Approved 11/07/1914... Department of the Interior...Water-Right Application for Lands in Private Ownership and Lands other than Homesteads under the Reclamation Act." tr. p. 15 b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 - Notice of Appropriation 10/10/06 South Diversion tr p. 17 b4 35/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 - Notice of Appropriation/Appropriation for Reservoir Purposes, 10/11/06 East Park tr p. 17 b4 35/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 - Notice of Appropriation 3/23/10 North Diversion tr p. 17 b4 35/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 - Notice of Appropriation 3/25/13 Feed Canal to East Park tr p. 17 b4 35/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 - 8 Withdrawal orders, withdrawn from public entry, first form, Sec. 3, Reclamation Act, 12/28/1908 - 11/08/1917 tr p. 18 b4 33/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 - Restoration order, 03/26/1917 tr. p. 18 b4 33/39 -
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 - tr p. 19-20 b4 33/39 --
  • 11/12/1906 Supervising Engineer, Portland Ore to Chief Engineer Washington D.C. transmittal, discontinue work until a decision
  • 11/12/1906 Report on preliminary investigation of Orland Unit (
    "There are about 2 million acres of land in the Valley that is likely to be suitable for irrigation. The run-off of the Sacramento River is sufficient to supply three times the amount of water that might be required for the irrigation of the entire valley."     1957 reprint
    "The small low water flow of this stream had been appropriated, and irrigation must therefore be dependent upon storage."
    "There are small amounts of land irrigated along Stony Creek in the narrow valley on the upper reaches of the stream. It is not expected that serious misunderstanding or litigation can resul from conflict in regard to the use of water."
    "That in any event from 1,000 to 3,000 acres may be added to the project by pumping from wells located at the lower edge of the lands to be irrigated, the supply for such wells to be obtained from underground water now existing in the gravel strata south of Stony Creek. . . .such cost may be reduced by including as much land upon which to pump water from wells as subsequent experience may warrant."), D.C. Henny, E.G. Hopson, S.G. Bennett, Board of Engineers -- * [get better copy]
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 - tr p. 19-20 b4 32/39 -
  • 12/07/1906 letter F.H. Newell to Secretary of Interior recommending $650,000 for Orland Project
  • 12/18/1906 letter Secretary to Director Geological Survey approving conditionally 1957 reprint
  • 10/05/1907 letter A.F. Davis recommending definite, approved by Secretary 10/05/1907 , "The purchase of above properties [SCIC, LHWP & LC] will settle all disputes with present claimants to water from Stony Creek and its tributaries, with the exception of several small irrigators of lands in the narrow foothill valleys and of a broad claim to Stony Creek waters of the Central Canal and Irrigation Company. As regares the above mentioned small irrigators, it is believed to be unnecessary to enter into written agreements with them because the areas which it will be possible for them to irrigate are small, and it is believed that the appropriation made by the United States of Stony Creek waters, if followed by construction and beneficial use will be a sufficient protection. . . ." 1957 reprint --
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 - tr p. 19-20 telegram, 06/14/1913 From Hopson to Reclamation, Washington D.C. urgent to begin right of way negotiations very shortly b4 32/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 - tr p. 19-20 telegram, 06/14/1913 From Newell to Reclamation, Portland, discuss with chief engineer and wire recommendations b4 32/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 - tr p. 19-20 telegram, 06/16/1913 From David to Reclamation, Washington, D.C. asking approval to begin right of way negotiations b4 32/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 - tr p. 19-20 telegram, 06/20/1913 From F.H. Newell to Reclamation Portland Ore. authorizing start of Feed Canal right of way negotiations. b4 32/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 - tr p. 19-20 report and letter: b4 32/39 -
  • 07/03/1913, Director, Reclamation Service to Secretary of Interior recommending $280,000 for East Park Feed Canal
  • 07/19/1913 ditto, urgency, "water supply of the project has proved to be defective"
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 - tr p. 19-20 report and letter: b4 32/39 --
  • 07/09/1913 letter from Supervising Engineer, Portland Ore. re: feed canal Urgency, "the water supply of the project has proved to be defective. . . It appears to be the almost unavoidable duty of the United States to build this feed canal. . . ."
  • 07/18/1913 letter to Supervising Engineer, Portland Ore. re: feed canal
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 - tr p. 19-20 report and letter: b4 32/39
  • 07/24/1913 Report re: Feed canal
  • 07/25/1913 transmittal
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 - tr p. 19-20 report & letters: b4 32/39 --
  • 08/16/1913 Board of Engineers to Chief Engineer re Water Supply & Enlargement reciting parts of 04/25/1908 and 04/23/1908 letters -
    "...pumping was considered an essential feature of the project if it was to include much land in excess of 10,000 acres. . . No pumping works have been built...31.Pumping as a means of supplementing water supply in dry years doesn not appear as promising as it did 5 years ago. During that time numerous wells have been put down by farmers, and a local supply for the experimental farm at Orland has been developed by the Service. The upper gravels are not very deep and the yield from them through wells has been unsatisfactory, it being impossible to obtain a good irrigating head from a single well. Most of the wells have penetrated through the clays into lower open strate with not much better results as to quantity, and requiring lifts of from 50 to 90 feet. Many wells did not srike water below the first clay...32. It is estimanted that in order to avoid shortage for a 14,300 A. project, a pump supply of 5000 A.f. per month or 83 s.f. would be required. It is extremely doubtful whether such supply can be developed...34. The uncertainty of developing so large an underground supply, the small saving, if any, that might result, and the possibility of safely supplying 20,000 A. from a canal, relatively little more expensive than that which would be needed for 14,300 A. are all reasons for giving decided preference to canal construction over pumping supply. . . ."
    revised runoff estimates,
    data since have shown that the original runoff data were "incomplete": recommend dam and feed canal from Big Stony to East Park, enlarge project from 14,300 to 20,000 acres, increase East Park from 45,600 to 51,000 acre-feet.
  • 08/20/1913 Transmittal
  • 08/27/1922 (actually 082713) Transmittal
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 - tr p. 19-20 letter from Morris Bien, Acting Director, to Secretary of Interior, seeks permission to build many structures rathern than put them out to bid b4 32/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 21 - tr p. 20 Contract, Proposal and Specifications (#257) for East Park Dam, Spillway & Dikes 10/05/1908 ( & 06/12/1909 agreement inserted in Exhibit 21 to delete the requirements that for extra-thick concrete there be included sandstone blocks as a filler); Specifications No. 155 Advertisement, Proposal and Specifications Orland Project, California, East Park Dam, Spillway and Dikes b4 34/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 - tr p. 20 Contract, Proposal and Specifications (#303) for Earthwork - Distribution System, Orland Project, California b4 34/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 23 - tr p. 20 Contract, Proposal and Specifications (#518) for Excavation, East Park Feed Canal, Orland Project, California b4 34/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 - tr p. 20 Contract, Proposal and Specifications (#546) for Diversion Dam and Structures, East Park Feed Canal, Orland Project, California b4 34/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 25 - Public Notice 05/24/1916 (water is available per plats within 7 square miles), 02/08/1917 (water available, omitted from plats in error), 02/21/1917 03/22/1918 04/02/1918 02/20/20 and 02/21/1922 (Annual charges, etc.) b4 33/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 - ("B-448"?), blueprint Map of Irrigated Lands under Stony Creek Irrigation Co., Orland, Cal. 1906 tr p. 70 b4 33/39

    Plaintiff's Exhibits 27 & 28 - described at Tx p. 3229 [MISSING]

    Plaintiff's Exhibit 29 - water claim 01/27/1888 Stony Creek Irrigation Co. 15,000 inches [29 - 34 at Tx. p. 3230] b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 30 - water claim 05/18/1888 Stony Creek Irrigation Co. 15,000 inches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 31 - Notice of Appropriation of Water, 100,000 inches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 32 - 05/16/1904 Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mary J. Scearce, W.H. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce and Mabel Scearce, heirs at law of Laban Scearce deceased, re the Scearce ditch b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 33 - 05/09/1905 Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall and C.M. Hall, heirs of estate of A.L. Hall deceased re ditches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 34 - 03/23/1905 Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Company and Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall and C.M. Hall, heirs of estate of A.L. Hall deceased re ditches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 35 - 09/14/1907 Agreement [35 - 40 Tx p. 3230]
  • attached recitations of Board Resolution,
  • Towle Agreement
  • Scearce Agreement,
  • 2 Hall agreements), Stony Creek Irrigation Company and USA (Reclamation) b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 36 - 05/21/1909 Deed, Stony Creek Irrigation Company and USA (Reclamation) b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 37 - 05/04/1897 Water Notice, Thos. Brown 10,000 inches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 38 - 09/11/1900 Notice of Appropriation of Water, Thomas Brown 10,000 inches b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 39 - 09/27/1907 Agreement (& board resolution), Lemon Home Water Power & Light Company and USA (Reclamation) b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 40 - 03/26/1910 Indenture (deed?), Lemon Home Water Power & Light Company and USA (Reclamation) b4 30/39

    [Plaintiff's Exhibit 41?] Maps 1 - 15; "Department of the Interior, United States Reclamation Service, Stony Creek Valley, California, Private Lands under Irrigation from Ditches Taking Water from Stony Creek and Tributaries", received as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 41 for Illustrative Purposes" tx p. 3255 [MISSING]

    [Plaintiff's Exhibit 42?, Tx p. 3288, "an illustrative outline of the testimony adduced in that regard..."] [MISSING]

    Plaintiff's Exhibit 43 - USDA Report of Irrigation Investigations for 1902 under the direction of Elwood Mead, Chief of Irrigation Investigations, No. 2 incl. Irrigation Systems on Stony Creek, Cal. By W.T. Clarke and C.W. Landis, 77 p. pamphlet [Bulletin 133 ?] tx p. 4153 b 4 35/39 -

    [44?]

    Plaintiff's Exhibit 45 - bound typed & blueprint booklet, maps, charts, & descriptions "Diversions by Private Land Owners on Stony Creek", 1911, by M.E. Ready, Assistant Engineer ; 1550.2 acres irrigated, 87.9 a-f diverted; narrative reagarding survey and for each irrigator; tx p. 4202; b4 33/39 -
  • map numbers [pretty much in order moving downstream; these blueprint maps are very fragile; presume Heading means head of ditch]:
  • 1 - T17N R6W
  • 2 - T17N R7W
  • 3 - - S4/5 C.H. Glenn 2 parcels [doesn't mesh with control map which shows one S33/S4]; C.H. Glenn Heading
  • 4 - - S 8 C.H. Glenn
  • 5 - T18N R7W; middle & south fork mis-named
  • 6 - - S36 Fred Laux; Fred Laux Heading, Lewis & Taylor Heading, Tom Farley Heading
  • 7 - T18N R6W
  • 8 - - S31 Tom Farley 2 parcels, J.W. Moris, Roy Walkup, A.T. Welton; Morris & Welton Heading, A.D. Hickock Heading, F.M. Kesselring Heading
  • 9 - - S32/33 A.T. Welton 2 parcels, T.M. Seidell, F.M. Kesselring 3 parcels, Hotel Block [downtown Stonyford?], Mrs. John McDaniels 2 parcels
  • 10 - - S28/29/30 Mrs. John McDaniels/ F.M. Kesselring 3 parcels, I.L. Robinson, A.D. Hickock, W.E. Whitcher, Alex Brown; Alex Brown Heading #1, #2 & #3
  • 11 - - S29/S30 A.D. Hickock 2 parcels
  • 12 - - S22 J.W. Edwards; J.W. Edwards Heading
  • 13 - - S20/21 G.D. Lewis, Mrs. J. O'Leary, Alex Brown 2 parcels
  • 14 - - S16/17 Alex Brown 2 parcels, S.F. Paine Heading
  • 15 - - S 9/10 S.F. Paine
  • 16 - - S11 J.N. Logan; J.N. Logan Heading #1 & 2, A.L. Triplett Heading, Jas. Harmon Heading
  • 17 - - S2/3 A.L. Triplett, Jas. Harmon
  • 18 - T19N R6W
  • 19 - - S34 Jas. Harmon
  • 20 - - S27/S26/S23/S22 J.H Soeth; J.H. Soeth Heading
  • 21 - - S15 J.E. Knight, John Johansen; J.E. Knight Heading, J. Johansen Heading #1, J. Johansen Heading #2
  • 22 - - S3 John Johansen
  • 23 - T20 R6W [C.T. White Heading]
  • 24 - - S34, I.E. True; W.L. Carnes Heading, C.F. White Heading
  • 25 - - S27 W.L. Carnes, C.T. White; W.W. Gatliff Heading
  • 26 - - S22/S15 W.W. Gatliff; N. Providence [sic] pump
  • 27 - - S16 M. Friday, N. Providence [sic] 2 parcels, J.S. West, J. Troxel; M. Friday Heading, M.G. Bedford Heading, N. Providence [sic] pump
  • 28 - - S9 J. Troxel, N. Providence [sic], M.G. Bedford
  • 29 - T21 R6W
  • 30 - - S22 E.E. Smith; E.E. Smith Pump
  • 31 - - S15 Geo. C. Ellis; Geo. C. Ellis Heading not marked, on Map 29
  • 32 - - S16 Geo. C. Ellis; G. C. Ellis Heading
  • 33 - T22 R5W
  • 34 - T22 R4W
  • 35 - T23 R4W
  • 36 - - S32/S29 A.T. Moore; A.T. Moore Heading

    Plaintiff's Exhibit 46 - Diversions by Private Land Owners Along Stony Creek, Survey of 1912 noting increases and waste by M.E. Ready, Asst. Engr., U.S. Reclamation Service, Orland, Calif.; tx p. 4202 b4 33/39 -
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 47 - The Sacramento Bee, 3 articles with editor's affidavit, 10/14/1907 "Secretary Garfield Approves Orland Irrigation Project", 08/28/1908 "Opening Bids for Construction of Dam", 04/22/1914 "Eight Bid for the Orland Project construction" b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 48 - The Orland Reigster, 10/09/1909 p. 1 ready for the next 10,000 acres b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 49 - The Orland Register, 04/25/1914 p. 1 Feed Canal structure bids opened b4 30/39
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 50 - purchase papers for Grindstone Indian Reservation: b4 32/39
  • 12/08/1908 letter from Jesse E. Wilson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, authority to purchase granted
  • 11/24/1908 letter from C.E. Kelsey to commissioner of Indian Affairs, forwarding offer from San Francisco Savings Union to sell the lands where the Grindstone Band lives, "...'Grindstone Band'. It is one of the most forlorn and poverty stricken bands in California." List of 40 residents: Newville Tommy Bailey, wife 2, Dr. Wilsey 1, Mrs. Will Kirk, 5 children 6, Nick BROWNELL, 1 grandchild 2, Charles Walter, wf. 2, Bill Bush, wf. 2, Jim Brown, wf. 2, Squire Green, wf., 2 ch. 4, Nellie 1, Mrs. Charlie Green 1, Dick Brigham, wf. 2, Woody Thacher, Wf., 1 ch. 3, Shoofly 1, Stony Ford Johnnie, 1 ch. 2, Wesly Geary 1, Jim Dimas, Wf., 3 ch. 5, Johnnie Hub, wf. 1 ch. 3
  • 11/23/1908 letter to C.E. Kelsey, offer to sell 80 acres
  • 01/07/1909 deed San Francisco Savings Union to United States of America
    Plaintiff's Exhibit 51 - Map of the (15 acre) Irrigable Part of Grindstone Indian Reservation, 05/1917, b4 30/39
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Defendant Bayley Exhibit 1 - tr 80 - Original Deed Robert W. Saunders to Arthur C. Bayley for riparian water rights 08/19/1917 b 4 36/39

    Defendant Bayley Exhibit 2 - tr 81 - letter, statement of use of water b4 39/39
    Defendant Bayley Exhibit 3 - tr 82 - Notice of Water Appropriation W.T. Troxel 05/25/1898 b4 36/39

    Defendant Brittan Exhibit A - tr 1177 - Original Deed Harry N. Brittan and Lula V. Brittan to S.J. Carpenter 05/25/22 b4 38/39

    Defendant Brown Exhibit A - 3-170 tr 681 - Deed Mrs. Belle Polley to Alex Browne b4 36/39
    Defendant Brown Exhibit B - 3-170 tr 682 - Notice of Water Approproation 06/12/1885 b4 36/39
    Defendant Brown Exhibit C - 3-171 tr 683 - Deed of Right of Way, Mrs. Belle Polley to Alex Browne 12/12/1890 b4 36/39
    Defendant Brown Exhibit D - 3-171 tr 683 - Original Deed John M. Pugh and Ruth R. Pugh to Alexander Brown 03/28/1883 b4 39/39
    Defendant Brown Exhibit E - 3-173 tr 684 - Original Deed W.P. Harrington to Alexander Brown 03/21/1891 b4 39/39

    Defendant Chastain Exhibit A - tr 1097 - Appropriation Notice 06/10/1885 b4 38/39
    Defendant Chastain Exhibit B - tr 1098 - Original deed including water rights 04/22/1909 b4 39/39
    Defendant Chastain Exhibit C - tr 2935 - Original deed Emma T. Whitcher to Henry J. Chastian 01/09/1920 b4 39/39

    Defendant Conklin Exhibit A - tr 1296 - Appropriation Notice 04/22/1892 b4 38/39

    Defendant Diefenbach Exhibit A - tr 1214 - Notice of Appropriation 04/10/1907 b4 39/39

    Defendant Edwards Exhibit A - Original Deed Geo. C. Ellis and V.L. Ellis to John T. Edwards and Caroline F. Edwards 09/21/1912 b4 39/39
    Defendant Edwards Exhibit B - tr 1118 - Original Deed Geo. C. Ellis et ux to John T. Edwards et ux 08/15/1912 b4 39/39

    Defendant Flanagan Exhibit A - Agreement Sale to Reclamation of land in the vicinity of the South Canal Diversion? in exchange for certain considerations? Copy? 02/26/1910 b4 39/39

    Defendant Gatliff Exhibit A - 3-104 tr 602 - Notice of Appropriation 06/05/1893 b4 36/39
    Defendant Gatliff Exhibit B - 3-105 tr 603 - Original Deed Fruto Land & Improvement Company to W.W. Gatliff 16-foot ditch right-of-way 03/24/1893 b4 36/39

    Defendant Glenn Exhibit A - Blueprint map of Section 33 lands T23N R4W astride the I.C. Canal, High Line Canal and Scearce & Hall Ditch b4 37/39

    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit A - map of district boundaries, canals, etc. [Excellent map with notes, "The Kuhn California Project, Irrigated Farms in the Sacramento Valley", land that might someday sell for as much as $500 per acre; marketing exhibit; GCID outlined in orange crayon; map is very fragile] b4 36/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit B - recitation of M.N. Sheldon 04/11/1903 Notice of Water Location 5000 cfs b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit C - recitation of M.N. Sheldon 12/14/1903 conveyance of 5,000 cfs of water rights to Central Canal and Irrigation Company b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit D - recitation of Central Canal and Irrigation Company 11/14/1904 Notice of Appropriation 5000 cfs b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit E - recitation of Central Irrigation District 04/26/1905 Notice of Water Location 5000 cfs b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit F - recitation of 01/06/1903 50-year lease from Central Irrigation District to Willard R. Sheldon b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit G - recitation of 06/17/1904 conveyance by Willard M. Sheldon to Central Canal and Irrigation Company of 01/06/1903 50 year lease b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit H - recitation of 09/20/1909 Deed from Sacramento Valley Land Company and Central Canal and Irrigation Company (to L.D. Waddell) b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit I - recitation of 09/22/1909 Deed from L.D. Waddell to Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit J - recitation of 06/16/1910 Deed from Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company to Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company b4 30/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit K - recitation of 09/19/1921 Assignment of Lease from Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and Jacinto Irrigation District (a bit complex)
  • resolution attached b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit L - recitation of 09/30/1921 conveyance of property described in a 07/11/1921 deed (Thomas J. Franklin, as Special master appointed, deeded to ??? difficult to parse the phrases and figure out what was deeded to whom, maybe "and Marle [sic] B. Moon" to GCID, see Exhibit M, note that there were multiple 07/11/1921 deeds) by Superior California Farm Lands Company to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
  • resolution attached b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit M - recitation of 07/11/1921 (deed) transfers of water rights listed on p. 5 per the formulae following them on that page, among Thomas J. Franklin, Special Master (under foreclosure decree?), the Equitable Trust Company of New York, Merle B. Moon (purchaser on the courthouse steps?), Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and Jacinto Irrigation District b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit N - recitation as in Exhibit M of 07/11/1921 (deed) of ditches, laterals and drains,
  • extensive list in Exhibit "A" attached to it b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit O - recitation as in Exhibit N of 07/11/1921 (deed) of Central Canal, pumping stations, buildings, equipment, etc. list in another Exhibit "A" b4 31/39

    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit Q - Equity No. 146 Northern District of California Decree, foreclosure and terms of sale following default on bonds, etc. 12/06/1915 b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit R - Equity No. 146 Northern District of California Order of Court . . . re Sale Remaining Portions of Canal and Irrigation System 01/03/1921 b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit S - recitation of 07/11/1921 Equity 146 Order Confirming Sale by Special Master tr 3178 b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit T - recitation of Glenn County Board of Supervisors California Irrigation District Act findings on establishment of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 03/01/1920 b4 31/39
    Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Exhibit ?[Z?] - recitation of 09/24/1907 Agreement between Central Canal and Irrigation Company and Morris Bien of Reclamation, regarding rights to Stony Creek flow b4 31/39 --

    Defendant Hall Exhibit B - Wax (?) paper drawing of first 2 miles of Hall & Scearce ("Scarce") Ditch b4 37/39

    Defendant Hineline Exhibit A - tr 1159 - Original Deed Mrs. Annie Cross to S.A. Hineline, 01/26/1909 b4 38/39

    Defendant (Ellen) Hunter Exhibit A - tr 1074 - Original Deed George Vanderford and Mary Vanderford to Ellen Hunter 10/06/1919 b4 38/39
    Defendant (Ellen) Hunter Exhibit B - tr 1076 - Original (?) Deed H.B. Vanderford to Edgar Hunter 09/22/1904 b4 37/39
    Defendant (Ellen) Hunter Exhibit C - tr 1078 - Original Deed Genevieve Hunter Brown and S.L. Brown to Ellen Hunter 02/28/1919 b4 37/39

    Defendant (Edgar) Hunter Exhibit A - Blueprint map of Ellis Ditch and appropriation Notice 03/05/1913 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit D - tr 1039 - Original (?) Deed Geo. C. Ellis et ux to Edgar Hunter 09/20/1912 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit E - tr 1040 - Original U.S. Land Office receipt Joseph Alson Long 01/18/1861 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit F - tr 1041 - copy, Patent to Thomas Stillwell 10/01/61 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit G - tr 1043 - Original Deed W.B. Small to J.A.(?) Lry (?) 04//17/1865 b4 39/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit H - tr 1045 - Original Deed Joseph A. Long to D.D. Mendenhall 08/04/1868 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit I - tr 1046 - Original Deed William P. Smith to John G. Wilson 04/07/1865 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit J - tr 1051 - Original Deed John G. Wilson to James Munro 11/09/1868 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit K - tr 1048 - Original Deed James Munro to D. D. Mendenhall 02/07/1871 b4 37/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit L - tr 1053 - Original Deed D.D. Mendenhall and Mary Ann Mendenhall to C.B. Hull (?) 06/13/1872 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit M - tr 1056 - Original Deed C.B. Hull to L.B. (?) Vanderford 04/05/1875 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit N - tr 1060 - Certified copy of court decree, estate of Chas. Vanderford Deceased to N.B. (?) Vanderford 05/23/1887 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit O - tr 1064 - Original Deed M. & M.A. Vanderford to N.B. Vanderford 06/27/1897 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit P - tr 1067 - Original Deed George Vanderford to Ellen Hunter 06/08/1899 b4 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit Q - tr 1068 - Original (?) Deed N.B. and Martha Vanderford to Edgar Hunter 01/14/1897 br 38/39
    Defendant Hunter Exhibit R - tr 1070 - Original (?) Deed Mary E. Vanderford to Edgar Hunter 04/19/01 b4 37/39

    Defendant James Mills Orchard Co. Exhibit A - Map of a Portion of the Capay Rancho Showing Lands Riparian to Stony Creek; Blueprint map of wells and lands for Owners: Esperanza Land Co., Mills Orchard Co., Sacramento Valley Sugar Co., Superior Calif. Farm Land Co., A. Kaiser, P. Williams, M.A. Sehorn, A.E. Slocum, Wm. Kaiser, Geo. Trank, Kate Karrier, M. Urjevich, F. Bagatelli, P. Hansen, Geo. Tracy, S.C. Nelson, Frank West, O. Handloss, R.T. Jones, Mills and Shanks, Billiou and Crew, Hoever and Sparrow, and showing wells of Esperanza Land and Mills Orchard drawing from Underflow. and showing Capay or Hamilton Unit lot numbers; tr pp. 3066-3069, Illustrative purposes only b4 37/39 -
    Defendant James Mills Orchard Co Exhibit B - Blueprint map and graph of wells showing effect of Stony Creek [Underflow], tr. p. 3072 et seq. 1920 b4 34/39 -

    Defendant Johanson's Exhibit A - tr 152 - Copy of Appopriation Notice 03/08/1886 b4 36/39

    Defendant Kimmel [sic] Exhibit A - tr 2935 Original Deed J.S. Sale and Mary P. Sale to J. Van Scyoc (J. Van Syeth in tr?) 12/13/1905 b4 39/39

    Defendant Knight Exhibit A - tr 409 - Notice of Water Appropriation by W.S. Carver 3/16/1883 b4 36/39

    Defendant Lewis Exhibit C - 4-46 tr 773 - Original Deed Fred Loux to ?. S. Taylor 04/06/1910 b4 36/39
    Defendant Lewis Exhibit D - 4-46 tr 773 - Hiram Calif (?) sold to Thomas Fairlee ditch right of way 10/04/02 b4 36/39
    Defendant Lewis Exhibit E - 4-46 tr 773 - Thomas Fairlee & Annie Fairlee purchase of ditch right of way from ?. ?. Taylor 10/08/02 b4 36/39

    Defendant Mann Exhibit A - 3-10 tr 493 - Original Deed Walter Dickson to L.E. Mann 07/25/1919 b4 36/39

    Defendant Moon Exhibit A - tr 1193 - Original Land Office deposit receipt Sanders D. Gatewood 05/20/1884 b4 38/39
    Defendant Moon Exhibit B - tr 1195 - Original Deed S. D. Gatewood to A.S. Moon 02/13/1888 b4 38/39
    Defendant Moon Exhibit C - tr 1197 - Original Deed Alfred S. Moon to Mrs. Iona O. Moon, 07/16/1889 b4 38/39
    Defendant Moon Exhibit D - tr 1199 - Original Deed Iona O. Moon to Irma J. Moon & Pruda W. Moon 04/12/1911 b4 38/39

    Defendant Morris Exhibit A - Original U.S. Land Office receipt William Adrian Morris 04/20/1882 b4 39/39

    Defendant Piersol Exhibit A - extract of 12/01/1890 homestead application by Andre McIntyre, 09/01/1922 b4 39/39
    Defendant Piersol Exhibit B - extract of 12/01/1890 homestead application by Janet McIntyre, 09/01/1922 b4 39/39

    Defendant Phelps Exhibit A - tr 1138 - Original Land Office receipt Ernest Clement Phelps 10/20/1919 b4 39/39

    Defendant Rays Exhibit A - tr 1176 - Original Deed David P. Ray to S.J. Carpenter 05/22/22 b4 38/39

    Defendant Studybaker Exhibit A - tr 317 - Notice of Location of Water Right and Appropriation of water 11/02/1907 b4 36/39

    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit A - p. 4058 [MISSING]
    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit B - Photo of cattle grazing tr 831 b4 37/39 & tr 4017
    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit C - Photo of horse plowing [mowing?] tr 832 b4 37/39
    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit D - Photo of horse plowing [mowing?] tr 832 b4 37/39
    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit E - Photo of produce tr 833 b4 37/39
    Defendant Tripletts Exhibit F - Notice of Water appropriation tr 941 06/18/08 b4 39/39

    Defendant Wakefield & Whalley Exhibit B - 2-186 tr 470 - Original Notice of Appropriation of Water by J.N. Logan 09/11/1908 b4 tr 470

    Defendant Welch Exhibit - F 02/05/1929 - Deed copy Frederick Laux, Jr. and Marguerita Williams Welch 02/26/1921 b4 38/39
    Defendant Welch Exhibit - F 02/05/1929 - Deed copy F.C. Wood and Joda Wood to Roy Welch 03/07/1918 b4 38/39
    Defendant Welch Exhibit - F 02/05/1929 - Deed copy Roy Welch to Marguerita Williams Welch 08/12/1919 b4 38/39
    071315 Katherine Laux to Frederick Laux, Jr., 091329 extract of deed, no exhibit markings b4 37/39

    Defendant Welton Exhibit A - 3-120 tr 632 - Original receipt for deposit
    Welton's Exhibit A tr 632 Arthur Thomas Welton, Original deposit receipt with U.S. General Land Office 10/10/1879 b4 36/39
    Defendant Welton Exhibit B - 3-120 tr 632 - Original receipt for deposit by John Martin Smith to the U.S. General Land Office 05/03/1881 b4 36/39
    Defendant Welton Exhibit C - 3-120 tr 632 - Original Deed John Martin Smith to Arthur T.(?) Welton 12/11/1880 b4 36/39

    Defendant Werth Exhibit A - Original Deed R.L. Neville to Henry Werth et ux 03/03/1917 b4 39/39

    Defendant Woods Exhibit A - Original Deed F.C.Wood et ux to C.W. Lovelace 06/08/1920 b4 39/39

    7. 1918 - 1930 TRANSCRIPTS - boxes


       Box 1 folders 1T - 13T, no 9T (Volume 11 of Transcripts), of 20T
  Folder 1T  

             vol. of Exhibits E-1 - E-42  Box 15 series 3 A0507F

             vol. 1 p. 1 - 75,                   "

         2T  vol. 2 p. 76 - 34                   "

         3T  vol. 3 p. 343 - 600          Box 16 series 3 A0507F

         4T  vol. 4 p. 601 - 775                 "

         5T  vol. 5 p. 776 - 1001                "

         6T  vol. 6 p. 1002 - 1156               "

             vol. 7 p. 1157 - 1301               "

         7T  vol. 8 p. 1302 - 1509               "

             vol. 9 p. 1510 - 1607               "

         8T  vol. 10 p. 1608 - 1961       Box 17 series 3 A0507G

            [Volume 11 is in box 2, file 19T]

         10T vol. 12 p. 2255 - 2320              "

         

         11T vol. 15 p. 2713 - 2899       Box 7 [17?] series 3 A0507G

       

         12T vol. 17 p. 3107 - 3240       Box 17A series 3 A0507G

         13T vol. 18 p. 3241 - 3292              "

             vol. 19 p. 3293 - 3518              "

       

       

       Box 2, folders pre-14T - 19T

         Second Unmarked folder:

           vol. 13 p. 2321 - 2608

           vol. 14 p. 2609 - 2712

       

           vol. 16 p. 2900 - 3106

       

         14T vol. 20 p. 3519 - 3920

         15T vol. 21 p. 3921 - 3999

             vol. 22 p. 4000 - 4237

         16T vol. 23 p. 4238 - 4392

       

               [ Vols 24 & 25 are a bit mixed up: ]

         18T vol. 24 p. 4293 - 4467 (corrected from 4238 - 4412, index shows
                               wrong numbers)

         19T vol. 25 p. 4413 - 4585

         			(4434 - 4585 missing, see Box 6)

         			(4413 corrected to 4568, rest & index not corrected)

       			(s/b 4468 - 4640?  so where is the 4641 - 4699?)

       

             vol. 11 p. 1962 - 2254

       

       Box 6:

         Portion of vol. 25 beyond p. 4433 (pp. 4434 - 4585) b6 Folder A1M/12M

         vol. 26, 03/25/1926, 4700 - 4838 (4700 an arbitrary starting number?)

                                              Box 17B series 3 A0507G

              

         1929 transcripts:

           Vol. 27 09/18/1929 pp. 1 - 25 b6 Folder A1M/12M -

                                              Box 17B series 3 A0507G

       

         Note that there are actually many more pages than the 4838 + 25,
	because many transcript exhibit pages are "230, 230-A, 230-B" for
	instance

       

       Also in Box2: 

         1928 Decree Book

         1930 Corrected Decree, with Judge Kerrigan's 4/14/30 correction signature

           (copy is worn and ragged around the edges)

    Transcripts Index

    D=Direct, X=Cross, RD=Redirect, RX=Recross

    Many typos; Reporter identified extended comments by counsel as "Statement by" - there are others not so identified
    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND DIVISION
    Before George E. McCutchen, Esq. SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY.

    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    H.C. ANGLE, et al.,
    Defëndants.

    IN EQUITY No.30

    HEARINGS At WILLOWS, CALIF.
    [Reporter] EMMET HEALY, SAN FRANCISCO
    REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT
    Pages E-1 to E-42 [index p. -- ]

    VOL. OF EXHIBITS

    Bay1ey’s Exhibit 1, p. E-1 08/09/1917 assignment of water right John O. Saunders and Robert W. Saunders to Arthur C. Bayley, Stony tr p. 80
  • 2, p. E-4 statement 10/02/1922 R.W. Saunders to A.C. Bailey re usage of water 06/1913 - 08/1917 Stony tr p. 81
  • 3, p. E-5 Water Notice of W.T. Troxel 02/25/1898 Big Stony [sic] tr p. 82
    Johansen's Exhibit A, p. E-7 Notice of intention to appropriate John Johannsen 03/08/1886 Big Stony [sic] tr p. 152
    Studybaker's Exhibit A, p. E-8 Notice of Location of Water Right and Appropriation of Water C.E. Studybaker 11/02/1907 Fern Rock on south side of Mad Creek [coordinates are on Clover?] tr p. 317
    Knight’s Exhibit A, p. E-10 Claim of water right W.S. Carver 03/15/1883 Stoney tr p. 409
    Wakefield & Whalley’s Exhibit B, p. E-11 Claim of water right J.N. Logan 09/12/1908 Stoney above Little Stoney tr p. 470
    Mann's Exhibit A, p. E-14 indenture Walter Dickson to L.E. Mann 07/25/1919 tr p, 493
    Gatliff's Exhibit A, p. E-16 Notice of Appropriation W.W. Gatliff Stony 06/05/1893 tr p. 602
  • B, p. E-17 indenture The Fruto Land & Improvement Company to W. W. Gatliff 03/27/1893 tr p. 603
    We1ton's Exhibit A, p. E-22 patent Certificate 7118 & deed (?) USA to Arthur Thomas Welton 10/10/1879 tr p. 632
  • B, p. E-24 Certificate patent 1001/Application 1583 & deed (?) USA to John Martin Smith 05/03/1881 tr p. 632
  • C, p. E-26 indenture John Martin Smith to Arthur T. Welton 12/11/1880 tr p. 632
    Alex Brown’s Exhibit A, p. E-28 indenture Belle Polley and Alex. Brown 10/18/1890 tr p. 681
  • B, p. E-30 Water Notice of C.M. Polley 06/02/1885 tr p. 682
  • C, p. E-31 indenture Belle Polley to Alex Brown 12/12/1890 tr p, 683
  • D, p. E-34 deed John M. Pugh and Ruth A. Pugh to Alexander Brown 03/28/1888 tr p. 683
  • E, p. E-37 indenture W.P. Harrington to Alexander Brown 03/23/1891 tr p. 684
    Lewis’ Exhibit C, p. E-39 indenture Fred Loux to W.S. Taylor and G.D. Louis 04/06/1910 tr p. 773
  • D, p. E-41 deed Hyram Calif to Thomas Fairlee right of way for a water ditch 10/04/1902 tr p. 773
  • E, p. E-42 deed Thos Fairlee and Annie Fairlee to W.S. Taylor right of way for a water ditch 06/14/1906 tr p. 773
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 1 pp 1 - 75 [index, 1-75 -- ]
    THURSDAY, 10/12/1922 l0:00 A. M.
    FRIDAY, 10/13/1922 l0:00 A. M. p. 7
    SATURDAY, 10/14/1922 l0:00 A. M. p. 62

    THURSDAY, 10/12/1922 l0:00 A. M.

    Appearances:
    Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles,
    Brooks Fullerton, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco,
    For the United States

    U.W. Brown, Esq., of Brown & Albery, Colusa, Calif.
    Frank Freeman, Esq., Wi11ows, Ca1if.
    H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco.
    A.M. McCoy, Esq., of McCoy & Gans, Red Bluff,Calif.
    Thomas Rutledge, Esq., (by Frank Freeman, Esq.,Colusa.
    C.L. Witten, Esq., San Jose, Calif.
    Howard J. Peirsol, Esq., Oakland, Calif.
    Claude F. Purkitt, Esq., (by R. L. Clifton, Esq.) Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendents

    Rudolph C.E. Weber, D p. 7; X 29
    Rudolph C.E. Weber recalled D 69
    A.N. Burch Direct 30, X 50, RD 59, RX 60
    William Palmer Gay D 62, X 67

    p. 2 Compensation of reporter -- [1-75]
    p. 2-3 How to proceed, stream by stream? etc.
    p. 3 Morton, Maps: 1) Map of the watershed itself and the course of the stream; 2) map of the project lands; 3) map of various irrigated areas in tributaries & main stream; 4) unirrigated lands for which allegations are made to riparian claims - [all MISSING? where were they introduced as exhibits? they are extensively referred to in subsequent testimony]
    p. 3 Downstream riparians and underflow pumpers

    Afternoon Session, 1:15 p.m.

    p. 4-6 Morton gets everyone to sign stip on missing allegations on some limited old purchased rights with list of supporting exhibits, etc. [15 lawyers, 8 present]

    FRIDAY, 10/13/1922 l0:00 A. M. p. 7

    p. 7 RUDOLPH C.E. WEBER for USA
    p. 9 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification [MISSING] Map "Orland Project"; correct pleading error, 20,657 acres instead of 20,500
    p. 11 photographs on Exhibit 1 with red lines from the map to them showing the Project components, blue arrow indicating flow
    p. 13 Project Area in green; Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for identification, [MISSING] map marked "Stony Creek Watershed"
    p. 14 Exhibit 2 dark green irrigated now, light green later
    p. 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 - Blank form, "Form B, Approved 11/07/1914... Department of the Interior...Water-Right Application for Lands in Private Ownership and Lands other than Homesteads under the Reclamation Act."
    p. 16 levy of $55.00 per project acre; Reclamation Extension Act of 1914. plus minimum operation and maintenance charges; in excess of minimum M & O assessed with excess water charges per acre-foot
    p. 17 notices: 1) 10/10/1906 Stony Creek near Miller's Buttes 500 cfs; 2) 10/11/1906 100,000 a-f/yr on Little Stony; 3) 03/23/1910 Stony 10,000 miner's inches NDD; 4) 03/525/1913 Big Stony 20,000 miner's inches Rainbow feed canal; certified copies of those 4 appropriation notices, Plaintiff's Exhibits 4,5,6,7
    p. 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, list of certified copies of withdrawals of public lands re Orland Project (or a certified copy of the list?); Plaintiff's Exhibit 9, list of restorations of certain lands re Orland Project
    p. 19-20 Plaintiff's Exhibits 10-20, various "reports of surveys of the various features--surveys and investigations of the various features of the project."
    p. 20 Plaintiff's Exhibits 21-24 illustrative contracts for the work done; Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 illustrative authorization of work done by foirces account
    p. 21 Spring 1910 public notice issued that the government would deliver project water, and charges therefor
    p. 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 [actually no. 25] certified list of public notices under Section 4 of the Reclamation Act; 1910 800 acres irrigated, gradually increased to 15,200 now
    p. 23 drought of 1920 irrigated less than previous year; 1910 700 acres, 1911 2663; 1912 4230; 1913 6616; 1914 7354; 1915 8928; 1916 9357; 1917 12,729; 1918 14,764; 1919 15,203; 1920 13,872; 1921 14,697; 1922 15,200
    p. 24 East Park construction begun Spring 1909, completed summer 1910; SDD 1908, current structure 1916 - 1908 headgate & short sections of weir on each side of stream, 1916 connected the weir pieces
    p. 25 NDD 1913, 2 main canals begun fall 1909 completed in 1910; feed canal begun 1914, completed 1915; 1906-8 work was preliminary: examination of land, drawing of preliminary plans for structures; project total cost $1,110,000; feed canal & deiversion $80,000; distribution including DDs $650,000
    p. 26 Diversion work photos on the map; & underflow, "diversion works is for the purpose of stopping the underflow, to bring it up to the surface? A. No, hardly."

    FRIDAY, 10/13/1922 1:30 P.M. p. 27

    Appearances:
    Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles,
    Brooks Fullerton, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco,
    For the United States

    H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Hankins & Hankins, for their respective defendants (everyone else left?)

    p. 28 diversion & feed canal & "connected appliances" $164,000, not $80,000; notices issued 1916, water delivered 1910-1916 under the "water rental system"
    p. 29 Examinatin & surveys $4,500; storage system including feed canal & East Park Reservoir $450,000; canal system $172,000; lateral system $262,000; concrete lining $221,000; 1922 O & M $1.75/acre whether used or not, plus toll $.25 first a-f, $.50 all further; "Q. What is your method of ascertaining the excessive use; do you meter the water? A. We measure all our water."

    p. 30 A.N. BURCH for USA
    p. 31 03/1909 - 10/1910 in charge of design and construction of canal system; thereafter to 08/01/1921 Project Manager of the works; Oakdale Engineering company, General Superintendent and Manager of Stanislaus Water & Power Company - power went to PG & E, irrigation to South San Joaquin & Oakdale Irrigation District, 1907 in charge of Umatilla Project, thence to Orland
    p. 38 "I designed practically everything on the project except the East Park Dam."; "subscription to the project covered over 40,000 acres"; "structures themselves and the lateral system were designed as for the same size, and of the same size that would be required if it had been a 100,000 acre project, but the canals diverting were designed for a smaller capacity than the final irrigable area of something over 20,000 acres" [?]
    p. 39 1912 "showed conclusively that our assumptions were wrong" about runoff available on Little Stony, 1912 being the 2nd dry year in a row; spring 1913 Burch "put a reconnoissance party in the field to see if there wasn't some way to see if we couldn't get water from the main watershed of Stony Creek in the higher altitudes." "...found that it was possible to build a canal across the divide from the main Stony Creek into this Little Stony Creek basin."
    p. 42 "lands have been using...a diversion of 4-8/10ths acre feet per acre" "3-4/10ths acre feet were delivered to the land."
    p. 43 "includes all losses from the diversions and not the transmission loss from storage" measured at NDD & SDD; annual losses from channel evaporation and seepage and reservoir evaporation is 11,050 a-f per annum (before Stony Gorge)
    p. 44 "carriage loss is made up of seepage, percolatin to the ditches, from unavoidable waste in changing water from one farm to another, and evaporation." "about 30% of the amount diverted"; Conveyance losses from one farm to another is very high with large heads and very small farms
    p. 45 "it would be possible to bring the carriage loss down to 25%", which is better than the Central Valley average; "The estimates on which the project was constructed are 3 acre feet...at the land, and I have had no reason--in my experience of 12 years that I have been in the project--to believe that that should be changed."
    p. 45 "Q. You think that the various elements that you have referred to in your testimony can be so arranged as to accomplish a 3 acre feet per year supply at the land? A. Yes. Q. And that will be sufficient by way of a grand average? A. I think so....While the average isn't far from that--3-4/10ths--there have been years, as I remember it, when we had a full supply--say 3.05, which is practically 3 acre feet." [full supply = normal rainfall delaying the onset of irrigation?]
    p. 47 "...the total reqirements for the Orland Project would be 82,000 acre feet...Of this amount of water, the Orland Project--from the records--would require 60,600 acre feet after the first day of June--...which is about 75% of the total supply for the project...."
    p. 48 "1901 to 1910, inclusive...United States Geological Survey measurements...in Water Supply Paper No. 298."
    p. 56 Underflow at Simpson bridge: "depth of the gravel there might be 16 feet. The amount of water underflowing in a channel, say, 500 feet wide and 16 feet deep--of course you will find gravel and said mixed together--is a very inconsiderable portion of the total surface flow up to, say, 50 second feet...." [?]

    SATURDAY, 10/14/1922 1:30 P.M. p. 62

    Appearances:
    Oliver P. Morton, Esq., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Los Angeles,
    Brooks Fullerton, Esq., District Counsel, Reclamation Service, San Francisco,
    For the United States

    Frank Freeman, Esq., Wi11ows, Ca1if.
    H.J. Hankins, Esq., of Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco.
    For their respective Defendents

    p. 62 WILLIAM PALMER GAY for USA, 65, west of Orland 1875, contractor: earth, ditch work, excavations, bridge work, reinforce concrete bridges
    p. 63 1888 SCIC Location & ditch to within a mile of Orland
    p. 65-7 Lemon Home;
    p. 67 South Canal
    p. 68 Freeman cranky about Morton interfering with cross

    p. 69 RUDOLPH C.E. WEBER for USA

    p. 69 SCIC purchase completed 1910 although arranged earlier, first USA operation 1910
    p. 70 map entitled "Irrigated Lands Under Stony Creek Irrigatrion Company" Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 26
    p. 71 "Some of the smaller laterals are now used as the distributing laterals of the Project.";
    p. 71-2 took over the Hall & Scearce contracts to keep the old rights?
    p. 72-4 Lemon Home
    p. 73 SCIC
    p. 74-75 Costs of reporter and Master apportioned

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

    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 2 pp 76 - 342 [index, 76,124-125,150-,161, 165-167,202,205-206,299-300 -- ]
    Monday, 11/13/1922
    Tuesday, 11/14/1922
    Wednesday, 11/15/1922

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

    H. J. Hankins, Esq., of Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco.
    Claude F. Purkitt, Esq., and R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT ARTHUR C. BAYLEY D p. 77, X 88

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 91, X 93
    C. H. Lorenz D 95, X 98, RD 99
    " Recalled D 102, X 103, RD 103, RX 103
    W.H. Sale D 104, X 108 & 111
    Frank W. Troxel D 111, X 113

    DEFENDANT A.M. GOLLNICK D 99, X 101

    Witnesses called:
    W.H. Sale D 104, X 108 & 111
    Fred Strawn D 293, X 295

    DEFENDANT CARL A. GREEN D 321, X 326, RD 326

    Witnesses called:
    Fred Strawn D 326

    DEFENDANT S.N. GREEN D 328, X 334, RD 335

    DEFENDANT JAMES HARMAN D 240, X 254

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 256, X 259, RD 259
    John Emory Birch D 276, X 280
    Christian Mikkelsen D 291

    DEFENDANT JOHN O. JOHANNSEN D 146, X 162, RD 168 & 170, RX 169 & 171

    Witnesses called:
    C.H. Lorenz D 138. X 143
    E.T. Eriksen D 172, X 174
    John A. Soeth D 237, X 239
    Frank Barker D 261, X 270, RD 274

    DEFENDANT ELLEN LUCAS
    Successor to C.A. Lucas

    Witnesses called:
    H.A. Butler D 310, X 314

    DEFENDANT P. L. MULFORD D 134, X 137

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen Direct 138

    DEFENDANT HARVEY E. PROVENCE D 335, X 340, RD 341

    DEFENDANT C.H. RIDLEY

    Witnesses called
    Mrs. Minnie L. Saddler D 301, X 307

    DEFENDANT JOHN H. SOETH D 281, X 287, RD 289, RX 289

    DEFENDANT C.E. STUDYBAKER D 315, X 319, RD 320 & 321, RX 321

    DEFEDANT FRANK W. TROXEL D 114, X 125, RD 128, RX 129

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 131, X 132

    DEFENDANT I. E. TRUE D 193, X 203
    " Recalled D 211, X 212, RD 213, RX 213

    Witnesses called:
    W.H. Sale Drect 104, X 108 & 111

    E. T. Eriksen D 206, X 207, RD 209 & 210, RX 210

    D. Robinett D 231
    John A. Soeth D 237, X 239
    Fred Strawn D 293 & 297, X 295 & 299

    MONDAY, 11/13/1922 - 10:00 A. M.

    p. 76-77 Master cranky about how few checks for costs he's received; had required that court costs be paid in advance, order at last hearing directing certain sums be paid by each solicitor [get this straight: any riparian rights or any rights at all were subject to the owner paying court costs in advance?] --

    p. 77 ARTHUR C. BAYLEY in his own behalf, 27.4 acres north of Elk Creek [no, south, between Briscoe & [in] Stony Gorge]
    p. 79 Setting the tone among competing defendants, GCID counsel going along with proof
    p. 80 Morton: "In order to avoid the making of objections in reference to the evidence in suipport of riparian claims generally in this proceeding, we have thought it best--and with Mr. Purkitt's consent, of course--to have it generally understood that the evidence in support of riparian claims is objected to as to matters of law in accord with the allegations set up in the replications." [is this the blanket or stipulated riparian objection?] "this particular objection is submitted for ruling subseqently." "THE MASTER: Yes; all evidence of this character will be received subject to a motion to strike out, to be interposed later."
    p. 80 Assignment from Saunders to Bayley of all his water rights in and to the land he deeded, Bayley Exhibit 1
    p. 81 Letter from Saunders to Bayley on water usage, Bayley Exhibit 2
    p. 82 Bayley Exhibit 3, certified copy of W.T. Troxel 02/28/1898 appropriation
    p. 82 Mr. Eriksen testifies without having been sworn, sworn at p. 91
    p. 83 Gollnick also uses the ditch
    p. 84 "usually turn it down in Nelson Creek"; cross Nelson with a flume
    p. 87 Mr. Purkitt associating with Mr. Robert M. Rankin of Orland, "If this case should go over after 01/01, he can go on with it." and all his cases ( elected 11/07/1922? 01/01/1923 Purkitt takes Office as Glenn County Superior Court Judge ? )
    p. 88 run the ditch full because with the gravelly ground it runs right off [through?]
    p. 89 True diverts between his diversion & Nelson Creek return
    p. 90 Land riparian, but Purkitt basing claim on appropriation

    p. 91 E.T. ERIKSEN on behalf of ARTHUR C. BAYLEY

    MONDAY, 11/13/1922 - AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:30 P. M.
    same attorneys

    p. 95 C.H. LORENZ for ARTHUR C. BAYLEY
    p. 98 White Ditch
    p. 99 A.M. GOLLNICK in his own behalf
    p. 100 White Ditch, by Gollnick & Charles T. White, Nelson Creek washed it through
    p. 101 True diverts between Bayley Ditch & Nelson Creek
    p. 102 True uses part of the Bayley ditch? his is the O'Brien place or the old Fred strawn place; White ditch not used anymore
    p. 102 C.H. LORENZ for ARTHUR C. BAYLEY
    p. 104 W.H. SALE for ARTHUR C. BAYLEY, I.E. TRUE, A.M. GOLLNICK, current County Clerk; Bill Troxel place, D.W. Troxel place owned by I.E. True
    p. 105 on the land owned by W.T. Troxel, G.W. Troxel
    p. 106 Johansen ditch in '85 or '86, and thinks W.T. Troxel after that, W.T. land is Bayley's
    p. 107 G.W. Troxel's owned by True, formerly owned by Sale, True ditch out of Stony on the Johannsen land 1-1/2 miles south of the Johannsen residence; True ditch notice of appropriation 03/08/1886 but the ditch was built before that
    p. 108 Johannsen & Sale built the True ditch together, 1884? 1885?
    p. 109 True via Johannsen ditch, Sale to G.W. Troxel 1885 or 6; Gollnick, previously Williams place or White placea, Williams Sale's stepfather, water used thereon early 80s
    p. 110 appropriateds a mile south of Gollnick residence, Glenn Williams place now Gollnick; Morton objects, Purkitt pointing out that many uses predated the appropriation filings
    p. 111 Sale was using the White ditch? [all this Sale testimony shows that even with ditches, USA was being difficult on who had been using water & where]; Gollnick....

    p. 111 FRANK W. TROXEL for ARTHUR C. BAYLEY
    p. 111 re his father's, W.T. Troxel's place now owned by Bayley

    p. 114 FRANK W. TROXEL in his own behalf
    p. 114 land from Katie West and Martha West, from Katie the Jim West Place; husband of Jessie E. Troxel
    p. 115 irrigate from Green & West Ditch, S.N. Green & John J. West
    p. 116 takes from Stony, crosses Briscoe thence north; runs across Green or Sawyer place;
    p. 118 flumes across Briscoe; on ditch also Mulford, Stewart, A. J. Angle
    p. 118 Lake place; Chinamen built a small ditch, they had a garden there 30 years ago, they enlarged it for alfalfa; always enough water in the creek for it even before East Park
    p. 121-2 Martha West water claim 04/18/1884, extends S.N. Green Ditch & Flume, old lady West
    p. 123 first riparian proof
    p. 125 "MR. PURKITT: It has been agreed between counsel that if this defendant desires to take up the riparian right, it will be done later, as to this defendant or any others. We are not putting on the proof of this defendant at this time as to any riparian right. MR. MORTON: And if it is not put on at any time, it is waived."
    p. 126 using flood system, but going to re-sow and install checks
    p. 127 5 crops of alfalfa, harvest once a month, ton & a half per acre where "it don't get killed out with gophers" "gophers kill it out pretty fast and you have to re-seed every few years to get a good stand."
    p. 128 "about an irrigation for a crop"
    p. 129 "MR. PURKITT...has there ever been a time prior to the time that the water from the East Park Dam was turned into the Creek, if you know when that was--do you know when they turned the impounded waters from the East Park Reservoir into the Creek? A. Yes, about the time. Q. Prior to that time, was there sufficient flow in the Creek to supply your land? A. Yes, as long as I have been irrigating; I have always raised my crops. There was times when we had to put in more dam than we do now. There used to be--we used to have--a board dam there in place of the cement dam. As the Creek would get low, we would have to tighten the dam up to get more water into the ditch....MR. MORTON: Q. Mr. Troxel, in the summer, in the hot months of the summer, you have been in this country what is called dry years, that is, without much water? A. Yes. Q. And you have had them every once in a while for the last 40 years? A. Yes. Q. At that time it is always a problem to get enough water? A. Oh, we would have to tighten up our dams, yes. Q. Since the Government build this reservoir and has been carrying the water down by the diversions of Stony Creek, there has been quite a large increase in the area of irrigated lands along Stony Creek? A. Not with me. Q. I don't mean yours. A. Well, I couldn't say as to anybody else; I don't know anything about that. Q. I don't mean to imply that that was done for that reason, but just at that time, I think, irrigation became more important in this part of the country. A. I know it made a great [p. 130] deal of trouble for us; when we had our wooden dam in there we used to turn in a big head of water and it would wash it out; I know we would have to rebuild it; but we put in a dam now that don't bother us. Q. Was your experience in that regard unsatisfactory in that you asked for a remedy from the Reclamation Service and didn't get it? A. Did I; no. Q. What I was wondering was this: Was it so serious as to cause a hardship, that the Government or the Reclamation Service didn't take care of? A. No. [nobody in his right might would have asked Reclamation to take care of it because they tend to retaliate] Q. I was wondering if that was the situation. A. No. Q. Is the concrete dam that you have put in more economical all around than the former dam? A. Oh yes. Q. You are satisfied that you put it in? A. Yes sir."
    p. 130 "MR. MORTON: For your information I will say, Senator, that the Commissioner has been distributing the avialable supply there and of course, in the tight months, has been endeavoring to give everybody his share and as much as he can. We have also had a man by the name of Harding, who is the recognized engineer and practical farmer in this Western country on the question of water requirements--we have had him go over the watershed there in an attempt to ascertain what are the requirements for ourselves and for the various people who are there--what would give them a sufficient supply of water with a proper distribution and system of alteration. We expect, of course, subject to the [p. 131] usual conditions that obtain in a suit of this kind, to introduce the testimony of Mr. Harding and also the testimony of Mr. Ericksen [sic]. If you prefer to have it happen at that time rather than to take it up one at a time, it will be all right with us. Mr. Ericksen is not the one from whom you can get, ordinarily the information on water requirements as distinguished from distribution during the dry months, of the amount that was available there."
    p. 131 not for stock, but some for a half acre of garden
    p. 131 E.T. ERICKSEN for FRANK W. TROXEL

    p. 134 P.L. MULFORD in his own behalf
    p. 134 from S.N. Green, under Stewart ditch & Troxel ditch, west bank of Briscoe
    p. 138 E.T. ERICKSEN for P.L. MULFORD

    p. 138 C.H. LORENZ for JOHN O. JOHANNSEN
    p. 139 reading in water claim 05/09/1887
    p. 141 "MR. PURKITT:...Q. While you lived there, was there always plenty of water flowing in the Creek for both his and your ditches? A. Yes, plenty of it. Q. Did you ever see the Creek dry in the summer time there at that point? A. No. Q. Always had water in it? A. No; of course it got low sometimes, but there was always plenty of water there, by putting a dam across the Creek to force the water in the ditches."
    p. 144 "garden truck and corn and in the last few years I had alfalfa in it." 5 crops

    TUESDAY, 11/14/1922 - MORNING SESSION - 10:00 A. M. [ -- 150, 161.165-167]
    same attorneys

    p. 146 JOHN O. JOHANNSEN in his own behalf
    p. 148 Johansen east side under the Lorenz ditch
    p. 150 garden
    p. 152 second ditch the Johannsen and True ditch, west side; Johannsen's Exhibit A, Notice of Location of water right, 03/08/1886 "MR. RANKIN: I am going to ask that that be considered read in the evidence. MR. MORTON: As long as you have one of the original copies there, it may be filed as an exhibit in the case."
    p. 154 other heirs, Wiebka Johannsen, Edwin H. Johannsen, Mrs. Annie C. Mikkelsen, Nellie P. Hansen, Delia A. Johannsen, Mrs. Olga c. Ahrens
    p. 158-60 75 acres, alfalfa, corn, grain , 7 runs, twice to a cutting, excess drains back to the creek "you can go along anywhere along the Creek and find all kinds of seepage water after we start irrigating." could irrigate another 50, would need to be cleared; also for stock
    p. 160 "MR. MORTON: I might say at this time that it is moved that the testimony in relation to unirrigated area intended to be irrigated be stricken out as not being in conformity with the pleadings. I imagine that the Master, in the light of these things, will want to reserve rulings. THE MASTER: Yes, the ruling will be reserved in that matter, as well as the other matters covered by the general stipulation. MR. RANKIN: To complete my proof on that, and also as connecting up the water right, I want to offer certain records from this Abstract, but I will have to segregate them. I don't want to offer all of this Abstract, because some of them don't relate to this particular land, so that I reserve the right to offer them later...."
    p. 163 "there is some that Mr. Ericksen has not measured that was in grain and grass; that is, it had been in grain, but we had it fed off for the hogs--that Mr. Ericksen has, 'not under irrigation'. Q. But that is land that is irrigated? A. Yes."
    p. 165 "MR. MORTON: Q. You know that the water in the Creek is pretty low in the summer, Mr. Johannsen, ordinarily? A. Not that I noticed; it has always had plenty of water. Q. In the middle of the summer? A. Sure, it always has. Q. I am talking about natural flow; I don't mean the flow down from the reservoir. A. You mean before the reservoir was built? Q. Yes. A. Always plenty of water. Q. And it is just as high in the summer as it is in the winter and the spring? A. No, naturally it would go down. Q. Well, then, it is low water in the summer and there is high water in the winter and the spring? A. Yes, it is higher in the spring and the winter, but it begins to rise in the fall; that is before the rains, but there is one point I have noticed above, where Little Stony comes in and that is near Stonyford, when it is almost dry, but the seepage water from the Brown ranch and the water that goes under the gravel comes out again and gives us a big flow. Q. If you couldn't get but very little water, say a one-third supply, during the latter part of June and July and August and the first part of September, instead of getting the supply that [p. 166] you get now--that is, you could only get a third of it--could you afford to farm in that country? A. I don't believe we could; we never had anything like that happen. Q. Do you think that if the 5,000 or more acres of land were put in between Little Stony and the Government diversions and then that there was distributed the available supply between your lands that are now irrigated and that 5,000 acres, which would make 5600 acres of land to be irrigated--do you think that any of you would have enough water? A. For 5,000 acres? Q. More. A. I don't think 5,000 acres could be irrigated, unless we irrigated the hills. Q. Do you see that brown area up the Creek on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 for identification, the strip all along there and going upstream from the Government diversions; do you notice the area in brown on this Exhibit, Mr. Johannsen? A. That is above Little stony. Q. No, this (indicating) is the Government diversion here, and we are going upstream alogn the Creek toward the reservoir. You do a good many miles until you get to the junction of Little Stony and Big Stony at the lower end of the map. This brown area here (indicating) represents in a general way the amount of land that is claimed by the Defendants on a riparian bsis, that they expect to irrigate. It comprises something over 5,000 acrs. Now if that land were irrigated during the summer months, from the summer flow of Stony Creek, and you all distributed that summer flow between the various areas, the various acreages, that the summer flow, instead of irrigating 600 acres, would irrigate 5600 acres, would any of you have enough water? A. There is a whole lot to that, because when one irrigates above the other that doesn't, what a man might say, lower the Creek; we catch all that waste water again, that is, the seepage [no sentence end? p. 167] Q. Then, as far as you are concerned, you and your neighbors woiuld be content to have 5,000 acres additional put in and the water divided up among you all, would you? A. I don't think so. Q. I am asking this question from some of you people who have lived there for a good many years so as to get a picture of the facts as far as we can; I am not rying to embarrass you by this question. [or divide & conquer?] A. Of course, if they came u p and asked us to turn down enough for 5,000 acres, we would be up against it; we wouldn't have any water that way. Q. As a matter of fact, the stream in the summer months won't irrigate anything like 5,000 acres? A. No, I shouldn't think so. Q. Nor a third of 5,000 acres? A. No; as a matter of fact, I don't think it gets down to where that land is sketched there; I have seen it get pretty low where the gravel starts; during the fall, it sinks. Q. Did you see it up above; that is one of the reasons it doesn't get down there, isn't it? A. Yes, it sinks in the gravel. Q. If you were compelled to let two-thirds of your water go down there, some of that water would get down there? A. No, I don't think it would, because after we stop irrigating it doesn't go down there in the fall. Q. There is a stream there, isn't there, A. That is while the reservoir water is running. Q. In the middle of the summer, it gets very low down there; that is what you mean to imply? A. Later in the fall; not in the summer months. I haven't seen it plumb dry, but I have seen it low below Elk Creek--that is, below what they call the 'irrigators'--low when it hits the ground." [this is Mr. Morton's first hammering on the riparians]
    p. 169 "MR. RANKIN:...Q. That colored area does not show that the irrigated land extends to the Creek; but that has been irrigated there? A. Yes, it has been irrigated. Q. What does that produce? A. Feed and grass. Q. What do you use it for? A. Feed for stock. Q. If it wasn't irrgated from the water, how would it produce feed for stock. A. The seepage water makes feed for stock....below the irrigated area there is more less seepage water and so forth that makes feed from the irrigation. Q. Then you not only use that irrigation water to produce crops that you harvest, but you use it to produce feed in the way of pasture? A. Yes sir."
    p. 170-2 back and forth on those edgy areas as to whether they were ever irrigated
    p. 172 E.T. ERICKSEN for JOHN O. JOHANNSEN
    p. 172-4 Ericksen "Q....prepare a series of maps showing irrigated and irrigable areas of lands along Stony Creek for the Government?...A. ...a series of 15 sheets" "sheet No. 6, showing the Johannsen lands....from actual surveys. [p. 173] Q. When was that made? A. In 1917, the survey was made from July to October, and this sheet was probably made in 08/1917"; Creek by 2 blue lines; yellow for irrigable areas not irrigated at time of survey but apparently had been in his opinion but not necessarily as a matter of fact; structures indicated;
    p. 174 map offered as Johannsen Exhibit B [MISSING, as are most other Eriksen maps] "for illustrative purposes only"

    TUESDAY, 11/14/1922 - AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:00 P. M. p. 174
    JOHN O. JOHANNSEN in his own behalf
    pp. 174-177 more on irrigated land not shown as such on Eriksen's map
    pp. 177-178 "MR. RANKIN: And prior to the time that dam was put in, did you one year and another have plenty of water for the irrigation of this property? A. Plenty of water."
    p. 178 "THE MASTER: May I suggest that you submit that abstract to the Reporter, designating the pages, and then he could copy from that and save the time of reading it all into the record at this time."
    p. 178-A patent to John Johannsen 10/14/1889
    p. 179 deed Andrew Williams to John Johannsen 03/13/1883
    p. 180 deed Andrew Williams to John Johannsen 03/09/1882
    p. 181 deed Andrew Williams to John Johannsen 05/31/1882
    p. 182 deed James Fisher Day to John Johannsen 09/16/1882
    p. 183 deed R.C. Anderson and Anice L. Anderson, his wife to John Johannsen 12/05/1884
    p. 184 deed Robert Clarence Anderson and Alice [sic] L. Anderson, his wife to John Johannsen 09/14/1886
    p. 185 deed W.P. Harrington to Claus Lorenz 12/10/1883
    p. 186 deed Claus Lorenz and Pearl M. Lorenz his wife to John Johannsen 09/20/1904
    p. 187 Water Location of Claus Lorenz 05/09/1887 [HERE]
    p. 189 Decree of Distribution Estate of John Johannsen to Wiebke Johannsen, Annie C. Mikkelsen (formerly Annie C. Johannsen), Antje Ardele Johannsen, Nellie P. Hansen, (Nellie P. Johannsen), John O. Johannsen, Olga C. Ahrens (Olga C. Johannsen) Edwin H. Johannsen 05/??/1921 [Duard F. Geis, their atty], lots under Stony Gorge?
    p. 193 Eriksen map #7 for illustrative purposes, Johannsen Exhibit C MISSING, as are most other Eriksen maps; average 5 crops of alfalfa, sometimes 7 if an early warm spring, a ton or more to the cutting per acre
    p. 194 I.E. TRUE in his own behalf
    p. 194 True, Eriksen Map #5 for illustrative purposes, Exhibit A MISSING, as are most other Eriksen maps [ -- 202]
    p. 195 Johannsen-True ditch
    p. 198 usually cut 4 crops then pasture it; without pasturing and if the right spring & fall up to 7 crops
    p. 201 Bayley ditch takes out on True's land; White ditch abandoned, runs across his land
    p. 205 Morton starts hammering on 5,000 extra irrigated acres between Elk Creek & Government Diversions
    pp. 205-206, [ Rankin comment "I think probably that this witness doesn't understand how these riparian rights would be apportioned." points to the conflict of interest among local bar members . Is this why the local bar shied away from riparian issues and why Mortion was able to do so much damage about them? ] --
    p. 206 "MR. RANKIN: Q. You irrigated that ranch, Mr. True, before the water was stored in the Government dam, didn't you. A. Yes. Q. And during those years, was there any shortage of water on your place? A. No sir. Q. The natural flow the stream supplied water for the irrigation of your lands the same as you irrigated it since that time? A. Yes sir."
    p. 206 E.T.ERICKSEN [sic] for I.E. TRUE
    p. 213 USA grant to James Williams upon full payment 12/01/1876
    p. 214 deed James Williams to William H. Sale 06/07/1882
    p. 215 patent to Robert W. Anderson 10/10/1879
    p. 216 deed Robert W. Anderson to Henry T. Anderson 11/18/1881
    p. 217 deed Henry T. Anderson to William H. Sale 08/26/1882
    p. 218 patent to Robert Walter Anderson 03/10/1884
    p. 219 deed of Robert W. Anderson to William H. Sale 01/15/1884
    p. 220 patent to Clinton T. Hull 08/30/1876
    p. 221 patent to Clinton T. Hull 03/01/1878
    p. 222 deed Clinton T. Hull to William H. Sale 08/29/1882
    p. 223 deed Clinton T. Hull to William H. Sale 01/07/1886
    p. 224 deed William H. Sale to George W. Troxel and Albert M. Troxel 01/12/1886
    p. 225 deed William H. Sale to Duncan Davis and Solon Davis 10/01/1888
    p. 226 deed Duncan Davis and Solon Davis to George W. Troxel and Albert M. Troxel 10/01/1888
    p. 227 deed Albert M. Troxel to George W. Troxel 09/18/1890
    p. 228 deed W.D. Davis and Solon Davis to Albert M. Troxel and George W. Troxel 11/18/1890
    p. 229 deed George W. Troxel to Clarissa W. Everts 02/06/1895
    p. 230 deed George Fetherston, Commissioner, to Security Savings Bank 08/07/1897
    p. 233 deed Security Savings Bank to I.E. True 07/16/1912
    p. 234 deed I.E. True and Ethel True his wife to F.E. Strawn and Lola Strawn his wife 02/18/1914
    p. 235 deed William H. Sale and Florence N. Sale his wife to Fred E. Strawn and Lola Strawn his wife 12/17/1917
    p. 236 deed Fred E. Strawn and Lola Strawn his wife to I.E. True 12/26/1919
    p. 236-B MORTON "general objection as to competency, relevancy and materiality be applied to all these offers, in so far as they seek to support riparial claims, the legal principles under which the objection os made being recited in the replication." Is this the stipulated objection?
    p. 241 [ Morton & Master keep referring to a stipulated objection on riparian claims, which is where? ]
    p. 242 Indenture Colusa County Bank to James Harman 01/03/1911
    p. 246 Indenture W.A. McKaig to James Harman 01/03/1911
    p. 248 Harman Exhibit A, for Illistration, Eriksen Map sheet 8, MISSING

    p. 261 Wednesday 11/151922
    p. 271 Morton, "since you have been up there,...there has been a very considerable increase in the area of the irrigated land, hasn't there?" "...always filed 10 or 12 or 15 times as much water as they used, didn't they?" Barker, "Some of them did and some of them didn't"
    p. 272 alfalfa retired, "getting too foul--too much water grass."
    p. 274 deed ditch right of way Richard Sisk Sr. to Helen M. McKaig 10/08/1883
    p. 277 Harman Exhibit A for Illustration, sheet 8, MISSING
    p. 281 Johannsen's Exhibit C for Illustration, sheet 7, MISSING
    p. 285 Purkitt: "If you were using the water in '95, why did you file an appropriation notice in 1907?" Soeth: "There wasn't nothing said about the water; there was always plenty of water, and I guess that was the reason."
    p. 287 Elderberries and goats
    p. 289 Soeth domestic well depends on water running in the ditch
    p. 290 Underlain with bedrock, goes right back to the creek
    p. 293 Morton, of all people, on leading
    p. 299-300 Morton hammering on irrigating 3,000 extra acres above the Project diversions; Stawn, common for Stony to be dry after it hit Winslow Bridge --
    p. 305 Notice of Water Location Martin Saddler 01/08/1904
    p. 306 deed Joseph Tansen to Martin Sadler [sic] 01/27/1904, strip for a ditch
    p. 308 Typical Morton objection, objected throughout to the introduction of any riparian claims
    p. 309 Indenture Joseph Taylor aka J.F. Taylor and Ellen I. Taylor his wife to Charles H. Ridley and Nellie F. Ridley 05/24/1921
    p. 329 Notice of Location of Irrigation Ditch H.E. Provence & S.N. Green 01/11/1908
    p. 339 Plaintiff's exhibit no. 2 for identification MISSING
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 3 pp 343 - 600 [index-343,356-357,415-416,430, 482-487 -- ]
    Thursday, X 16/1922
    Friday, 11/17/1922
    Saturday, 11/18/1922
    Monday, 11/20/1922

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

    Claude F. Purkitt, Esq., and R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT A.M. GOLLNICK RECALLED D 344 & 363, X 355 & 365, RD 364

    Witneses called:
    E. T, Eriksen D 362, X 363

    DEFENDANT JAMES HARMAN

    Witnesses called:
    George B. Pence Dirct 365, X 367
    Minnie Florence McKaig D 457, X 459, RD 460 & 461, RX 461 & 462

    DEFENDANT EDGAR HUNTER D 520 & 32, X 528 & 531, RD 529

    DEFENDANT ELLEN HUNTER

    Witnesses called:
    Edgar Hunter D 520 & 532, X 528 & 531 & 533, RD 529

    DEFENDANT ELLEN HUNTER, ADMS.

    Witnesses called:
    Edgar Hunter D 520 & 532, X 528 & 531 & 533, RD 529

    DEFENDANT J. E. KNIGHT D 369 & 379, X 377
    " Recalled D 409 & 415, X 427 & 439 & 454, RD 456

    Witnesses called:
    George J. Boudro D 379, X 383
    W. T. Eriksen D 384, X 384

    DEFENDANTS GEORGE W. LEWIS AND FRANK W. LEWIS

    Witnesses ca1led:
    George W. Lewis D 546, X 574, RD 593 & 598 & 599, RX 595 & 598

    DEFENDANT L.E. MANN D 493, X 495

    Witnesses called:
    Walter Dickson D 487, X 492
    E. T. Eriksen D 496, X 497

    DEFENDANT MRS. MARY O'LEARY

    Witnesses called:
    Charles O'Leary D 397, X 407, RD 408

    DEFENDANT S.F. PAINE

    Witnesses called:
    K.G. Heard D 509, X 519
    Charles Alexander D 544, X 546

    DEFENDANT J.S. SALE D 536, X 540

    DEFENDANT JOHN H. SOETH D 391

    DEFENDANT W.H. STITES D 385, X 390

    Witnesses called:
    E T. Fricksen D 391

    DEFENDANT A.P. WAKEFIELD D 463, X 473, RD 477, RX 478
    " Recalled X 481, RD 482

    Witnesses called,:
    George B. Pence D 365, X 367
    E.T. Eriekeen Direct 479, X 480, RD 480 & 481, RX 481

    Claude F. Purkitt D 482, X 486

    DEFENDANT FRANK WHALLEY

    Witnesses called:
    George B. Pence D 365, X 367
    A.P. Wakefield D 463, X 473, RD 477, RX 478
    " Recalled X 481, RD 482
    E.T. Eriksen D 479, X 480, RD 480 & 481, RX 481

    Claude F. Purkitt D 482, X 486

    THURSDAY, 11/16/1922 10:00 A.M.

    p. 356-7 Morton hammering on prospect of thousands of acres downstream --
    p. 361 Water Notice, J.R. Troxel 09/22/1896

    AFTERNOON THURSDAY, 11/16/1922 1:00 P.M.

    p. 374 Water Location W.S. Carver 03/15/1883
    p. 382 Seepage back into the creek, sometimes big, sometimes small 48 hours to 3 days after applying water
    p. 389 deed Thomas Fairlee to W.S. Taylor and George D. Lewis 10/25/1906 ditch right-of-way
    p. 390 Stites Exhibit A for Illustration, MISSING
    p. 393 Indenture M. Hochheimer and Hattie Hochheimer his wife to John H. Soeth 01/31/1894
    p. 396 Indenture Robert Brown to John H. Soeth 01/12/1903
    p. 402 Indenture Dennis O'Leary to Mary O'Leary 09/20/1887
    p. 406 Notice of appropriation C.M. Polley 11/23/1885
    p. 408 Seepage out of the ground from Brown irrigation, into the slough
    p. 411 patent to Michael Erb 08/29/1888
    p. 412 Morton: "As in all offers of documents which purpose to support Riparian claims, I make the same objection, upon the grounds heretofore stipulated, to wit: that they are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and improper, for the reasons and principles stated in the replications...."
    p. 413 Morton: "It is understood that all evidence admitted in support of riparian claims is subject to the same objection." Master: "Yes, that will be the understanding."
    p. 413 deed Michael Erb to Barbara Schmitzer 04/27/1889

    p. 415 Friday, 11/17/1922

    p. 416 Morton objects to any riparian evidence outside the pleadings, and to an effort to reform the pleadings to conform --
    p. 418 patent to Cyrus Adelbert Frisbie 05/01/1907
    p. 420 deed Cyrus Adelbert Frisbie to Mrs. A.M. Frisbie 10/22/1910
    p. 421 deed Mrs. A.M. Frisbie to J.E. Knight 10/25/1910
    p. 423 deed Mrs. A.M. Frisbie & Cyrus Adelbert Frisbie to J.E. Knight 10/25/1910
    p. 430 Master: "Any evidence heretofore offered tending to support the claim of riparian rights on Bowman Creek will be considered as having been objected to and the objection sustained, and the evidence admitted under Rule 46, in so far as it applies to Bowman Creek, with no ruling on it, in so far as it tends to support any other claim, save that it is subject to the stipulated objection and to the objection previously made by Plaintiff." illustrative of many such exchanges. --
    p. 431 patent to Barbara Schmitzer 05/22/1895
    p. 432 deed Barbara Schmitzer to Michael Erb 10/02/1895
    p. 433 deed Michael Erb to Barbara Schmitzer 03/14/1903
    p. 434 deed Michael Erb to Barbara Schmitzer 03/05/1912
    p. 435 deed Barbara Schmitzer to Barbara Schmitzer, Jr., daughter 06/09/1914
    p. 436 deed Barbara Schmitzer and Barbara Schmitzer, Jr. and Michael Erb to J.E. Knight 07/19/1917
    p. 440 patent to George W. Williams 10/29/1894
    p. 442 deed George W. Williams to Joseph Burke 01/06/1894
    p. 444 deed Joseph Burke to J.E. Knight 03/25/1905
    p. 445 Power of Attorney Joseph Burke to Ben F. Geis 02/18/1905
    p. 449 patent to Lola Howden 07/12/1900
    p. 451 deed John S. Manson to H.D. Knight and brother 03/14/1903
    p. 452 deed H.D. Knight and brother to John E. Knight 09/23/1903

    p. 415 AFTERNOON Friday, 11/17/1922 1:30 p.m.

    p. 464 Wakefield Exhibit A for Illustration, MISSING
    p. 467 Water not absorbed "seeps right back into the creek"
    p. 470 deed Kittie Zumwalt (Guardian, Mary Zumwalt) to J.N. Logan 11/28/1904
    p. 470 Notice of appropriation of water J.N. Logan 09/18/1908 [offered but not in the record]
    p. 477 Morton again hammering on how many extra thousands of acres Stony could irrigate; Rankin on underflow
    pp. 488-489 Morton on irrigating more lands
    p. 484 Claude Purkitt testifying; drove stage for Fouts at age 16; swimming hole at head of Wakefield & Whalley ditch, 50-100 young     Indians diving in and catching fish by hand --
    p. 490 seepage right back into the creek
    p. 491 Notice of Appropriation of Water, Walter Dickson, Andrew McIntyre recorded 02/28/1903
    p. 492 water irrigated runs back to the creek
    p. 493 Mann Exhibit "A"
    p. 498 Wakefield & Whalley's Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 501 seepage & sub-irrigation
    p. 502 irrigating from seepage [into Salt Creek?] from Brown irrigation
    p. 506 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 507 Mr. Purkitt responds on adding more lands

    p. 509 Saturday, 11/18/1922
    p. 516 water in Salt Creek depended on seepage from Brown irrigating above it
    p. 517 Mr. Purkitt examing Mr. K.G. Heard, "Dad"?
    p. 518 all seepage went back into Stony Creek
    p. 519 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands [political cross examining?]
    p, 521 Notice of Water Location 07/22/1897 Geo. C. Ellis
    p. 522 deed George C. Ellis and V.L. Ellis to Edgar Hunter 09/20/1912
    p. 527 Morton badgering McCutchen into accepting his objection?
    p. 529 deed M.B. Vanderford and Martha Vanderford to Edgar Hunter 01/14/1897
    p. 533 water underneath in the gravel
    p. 536 Hunter's Exhibit C different from the one at b4 37/39, MISSING?
    p. 539 in places it would seep under and come out and flow below
    p. 542 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands

    p. 543 Monday, 11/20/1922
    p. 549 Lewis Exhibit "A" for Illustration MISSING
    p. 556 Lewis Exhibit "B" for Illustration MISSING

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 4 pp 601 - 775 [index-601,608 -- ]
    Tuesday, 11/21/1922
    Wednesday, 11/22/1922
    Thursday, 11/23/1922

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

    Claude F. Purkitt, Esq., and R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT O.F. BICKFORD D 755

    DEFENDANT ALEX BROWN D 680 & 698 & 719, X 727, RD 735

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 696
    Mrs. Hannah Bailey D 712, X 717
    O. F. Bickford D 735, X 743
    Dick Moore D 750

    DEFENDANT DR. W. W. GATLIFF D 601, X 626

    Witnesses called:
    E. T. Eriksen D 666, X 675

    DEFENDANT THOMAS FAIRLEE, Substituted for John M. and Preston Morris.

    Witnesses called:
    A.T. Welton D 663, X 665, RD 665
    E.T. Eriksen D 666, X 675

    DEFENDANTS GEORGE W. LEWIS AND FRANK W. LEWIS

    Witnesses Called:
    A.T. Welton D 650, X 655
    E.T. Eriksen D 666, X 675
    George D. Lewis D 763, X 774

    DEFENDANT EDITH MCGAHAN, ADMINISTRATRIX of the Estate of R.L. WALKUP, Deceased.

    Witnesses called:
    A.T. Welton D 659, X 661, RD 662, RX 662
    E.T. Eriksen D 666, X 675

    DEFENDANT S. F. PAINE

    Witnesses called:
    A.T. Welton D 657, X 658
    E.T. Eriksen D 666, X 675

    DEFENDANT A.T. WELTON D 631, X 644, RD 649
    " Recalled, D 656, X 657

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 666, X 675

    DEFENDANTS FRANK WHALLEY AND A.P. WAKEFIELD

    Witnesses called:
    Charles Alexander D 677, X 679

    p. 601 Thursday 11/21/1922
    p. 603 Defendant True's Exhibit "A" MISSING
    p. 608 Bottom land without water $50/acre; with water $500/acre --
    p. 609 Checks cut water usage and time in half, and eliminate seepage
    p. 610 Standard Morton objection to riparian proofs
    p. 611 patent to James Goodrich 05/03/1881
    p. 612 Decree of Distribution Estate of James Goodrich, to Nancy R. Goodrich 08/16/1883
    p. 613 deed Nancy R. Goodrich to S. Jackson Matthews 01/30/1884
    p. 614 deed S. Jackson Matthews to Nancy R. Goodrich 03/11/1885
    p. 615 deed Nancy R. Goodrich to Kate D. Sehorn 10/27/1886
    p. 615 deed Kate D. Sehorn to A.W. Sehorn 05/21/1888
    p. 617 patent Isaac S. Vanlandingham 06/24/1878
    p. 618 deed Isaac S. Vanlandingham to A. Montgomery 10/03/1877
    p. 619 deed A. Montgomery to W.T. Anderson 12/09/1881
    p. 620 deed W.T. Anderson to J.W. Housto [sic] 09/03/1883
    p. 621 deed W.T. Anderson to J.W. Houston 09/26/1885
    p. 622 deed J.W. Houston to James R. Talbot 10/02/1885
    p. 623 deed James R. Talbot to A.W. Sehorn 03/31/1890
    p. 624 deed A.W. Sehorn and Kate D. Sehorn to W.W. Gatliff 03/31/1890
    p. 628 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 640 Seepage back to Stony
    p. 644 Mr. Dent cross-examines
    p. 651 Sheet No. 11 Defefendant Lewis' Exhibit A MISSING

    p. 680 Wednesday, 11/22/1922
    p. 682 Water Location Notice C.M. Polley 12/01/1885
    p, 686 Sheet 10 map Defendant Brown's Exhibit F for illustration MISSING
    p, 704 patent Timothy O'Leary 05/05/1875
    p, 704-B deed Timothy O'Leary to W.P. Harrington 03/25/1886
    p, 705 patent William Flinn 02/20/1882
    p, 706 deed William Flinn to Mrs. E.A. Flinn 08/15/1881
    p, 707 deed Mrs. E.A. Flinn to C.M. Polley 09/05/1884
    p, 708 deed Charles M. Polley to Belle Polley 11/29/1889
    p, 708-B patent J.N.M. Haddick 11/02/1875
    p, 709 deed J.N.M. Haddick to John M. Pugh and Jos. Girdner 10/13/1875
    p, 709 deed Joseph Girdner to John M. Pugh and 03/02/1882
    p. 711 Messrs. Purkitt & Rankin on the U.S. statute passing title to the state
    p, 713 2 brothers named Letts murdered 1877
    p. 714 Pugh the first to plant alfalfa on Stony Creek 1877
    p, 719 patent Mary Pond 09/03/1875
    p, 721 deed Mary Pond to John M. Pugh 08/02/1875
    p, 722 deed John M. Pugh to Joseph girdner 10/14/1875
    p, 723 patent Joseph Girdner, John M. Pugh, J.N.M. Haddick 10/20/1879
    p, 724 deed J.N.M. Haddick to Joseph Girdner & John M. Pugh, 10/01/1878
    p, 725 deed J.N.M. Haddick to Joseph Girdner & John M. Pugh, 10/02/1879
    p, 725 Morton complaining Mr. Purkitt is too fast for him
    p, 726 deed Joseph Girdner to John M. Pugh, 10/02/1879
    p. 734 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 734-5 spring or well adjoining house broke out from irrigating, flows back to Stony
    p. 735 Morton objects to Purkitt leading witness of govenrment's diversion of water above his ditch in 1920
    p. 737 typical of the conversational interruptions by Morton except where it was done to him

    p. 743 Thursday, 11/23/1922
    p. 759 after irrigation, water seeps out all along the creek
    p. 769 Notice of Appropriation W.S. Taylor and George D. Lewis 11/12/1906
    p. 774 Defendant Lewis Exhibits C, D & E
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 5 pp 776 - 1001 [index-776 -- ]
    Thursday, 01/04/1923
    Friday, 01/05/1923
    Saturday, 01/06/1923

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

    Claude F. Purkitt, Esq., and R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT ALEX BROWN

    Witnesses called:
    M.A. Russell D 776, X 781
    O.F. Bickford Direct 784, X 788, RD 792
    E. M. Pugh D 792, X 795, RD 800
    " Recalled D 802, X 802
    Dick Moore D 805, X 811, RD 817, RX 817

    DEFENDANT HENRY J. CHASTAIN D 943, X 948, RD 953

    Witnesses called:
    W. J. Foutch D 956, X 965, RD 965


    DEFENDANT W.J. FOUTCH D 956, X 965, RD 965

    DEFENDANT S.A. HINELINE

    Witnesses called:
    Abe L. Triplett D 926, X 930
    Claude F. Purkitt D 932

    DEFENDANT EDGAR HUNTER D 995, X 997
    " Recalled D 998, X 1000, RD 1001
    (Re: Withdrawal of Admission by Claude F. Purkitt, concerning Ellis Ditch) D 913

    Witnesses called:
    George Vanderford D 971, X 975, RD 976, RX 976

    DEFENDANT ELLEN HUNTER

    Witnesses called:
    George Vanderford D 977, X 991
    Edgar Hunter D 995, X 997

    DEFENDANT LUCY KIMEL

    Witnesses called:
    J.G. Van Scyoc D 916, X 922, RD 923
    E.T. Eriksen D 923, X 924, RD 925, RX 926

    DEFENDANT WILLIAM NEISEN D 905, X 910, RD 912, RX 913

    Witnesses called:
    E.E. Smith D 894, X 897
    George Vanderford D 901, X 904

    DEFENDANT I. L. ROBERTSON D 966

    DEFENDANT E.E. SMITH D 881, X 889

    Witnesses called:
    George Vanderford D 898

    DEFENDANT ABE L. TRIPLETT D 818
    " Recalled D 822, X 836
    " Recalled D 932, X 934

    Witnesses called:
    M.A. Russell D 819, X 822
    C,V. Seidell D 859, X 863
    Erving Triplett D 864, X 869, RD 876, RX 877
    M.V. Kalloch D 878, X 881
    J,E. Knight D 938, X 942

    Mr. Purkitt appearing? wasn't he a Superior Court Judge by this time?
    p. 776 Thursday, 01/04/1923
    p. 778 Alex Brown Exhibit G, survey map showing 449.3 irrigable (irrigated?) acres, p. 779 for illustrative purposes and more, no, not for illustrative, only subject to the "stipulated objection", MISSING
    p. 822 Russell survey map, Triplett Exhibit "A" for illustrative purposes, MISSING
    p. 832 part of it subirrigates out underneath, and you don't have to irrigate it
    p. 833, 847-8 Effect of East Park, before water was warm, after it ran cold and cut Triplett one crop per season (5 down to 4) and the tonnage down a fourth, every season thereafter
    p. 834 so much released from East Park, flooding was a regular problem for Triplett
    p. 835 always water in the flume around East Park construction; underflow always, dam reduced underflow?
    p. 835-6, Dam reduced the flow for their irrigation late summer, before the dam there was always flow
    p. 836 dam cut off the underflow
    p. 838 lower land got so wet from seepage from higher irrigated land, didn't need to directly irrigate it, abandoned the ditches
    p. 842 Morton arguing about sub-irrigation
    p. 848 Morton arguing about flood control
    p. 849 Triplett rather Orland Project didn't exist; doesn't like the cold water releases
    p. 850-3 East Park stopped the underflow, which previously was quite prominent; and previously warmer, too, fed good swimming holes that are too cold now, go above the dam to swim now.
    p. 855, 857-8 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands; yet, that's exactly what Reclamantion has done

    p. 859 Friday, 01/05/1923
    p. 869 again, sub-irrigation
    p. 877 Morton v. Purkitt about which one is leading?
    p. 886 E.E. Smith, sandy loam underlain with gravel, drainage right back into the creek; always plenty of water with water to spare
    p. 892 "Never have I saw it that it didn't run."
    p. 893 gravel bed, quarter to half mile wide, undercurrent at right angle to surface flow; always flowing to Julian Rocks, thereafter above or subsurface depending on the year
    p. 910 Niesen, waste water right back to Stony
    p. 913 Withdrawal of Admission by Claude F. Purkitt, concerning Ellis Ditch
    p. 915 Purkitt reads part of Section 1415, Stats 1903, p. 361
    p. 920 Van Scyoc waste & seepage back to the creek
    p. 922 Morton & Rankin duel on riparian proofs
    p. 927 map sheet 9, Wakefield & Whalley's Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 932 Statement by Mr. Purkitt for S.A. Hineline, spring 1906 he was a candidate for Democratic nomination as District Attorney, Triplett running boarding house/feed stable, a HQ for candidates, candidate sent to the garden to harvest vegetables, saw quite a stream of water in a ditch.
    p. 934-6 applied, runs right back into the creek; low flow, seeps back
    p. Morton educating witness on Miner's inches

    p. 938 Saturday, 01/06/1923
    p. 941 Notice of Appropriation, J.E. Knight 06/18/1908 Triplett's Exhibit F
    p. 951 & 959 map Lewis Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 974 Vanderford, flat on bedrock near Grindstone, only needed to irrigate a few checks next to the bank and the rest sub-irrigated
    p. 981, 983-5 Morton, witness not qualified?; McCutchen overrules: "...my opinion that the witness is qualified to testify that a ditch line can be run. A man who has seen the rainfall and seen which way the water drains and is familiar with the country, can surely testify, even so far as giving opinion evidence, as to which way water will run."
    p. 982 Spring Branch Creek
    p. 988 Morton objects to Spring Branch testimony as outside the pleadings; summer Spring Branch flow is entirely irrigation seepage along bedrock
    p. 990 Morton objects, Vanderford proposing an (existing?) appropriation to lands not riparian?
    p. 992 Spring Branch underground through gravel before Grindstone in the summer?
    p. 999 Morton, Hunter testimony incompetent; "I don't want to be captious too much, but...."
    p. 1000 Spring Branch under the gravel before Grindstone

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 6 pp 1002 - 1156 [index-1002,1012 -- ]
    Monday, 01/08/1923
    Tuesday, 01/09/1923

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT HENRY J. CHASTAIN

    Records - Title D 1096

    DEFENDANT J.T. EDWARDS D 1114, X 1127

    Witnesses called:
    George C. Ellis D 1015, X 1019, RD 1021

    DEFENDANT GEORGE C. ELLIS D 1002, X 1012

    DEFENDANT JOHN A. HARBISON D 1140, X 1145, RD 1150 & 1151, RX 1151 & 1152

    Witnesses called:
    E.C. Phelps D 1152, X 1154

    DEFENDANT EDGAR HUNTER

    Witnesses called:
    George C. Ellis D 1021, X 1023, RD 1025
    Records - Title D 1036

    DEFENDANT ELLEN HUNTER

    Records - Title D 1072

    DEFENDANT G.W. MARKHAM D 1083, X 1088, RD 1094

    DEFENDANT E.C. PHELPS D 1130, X 1137

    DEFENDANT ROBERT ROWCROFT D 1026, X 1032, RD 1033

    p. 1002 Monday 01/08/1923
    p. 1004 Notice of appropriation & claim Geo. C. Ellis 07/22/1897
    p. 1007 Grindstone land seepage right back into the creek
    p. 1009 Watson Creek too much gravel, all underflow after July?
    p. 1012 Watson Creek adjudication in Glenn Superior? Geo. Ellis a defendant? --
    p. 1017 Notice of appropriation 07/22/1897 Geo. C. Ellis (reads a bit different from the one at p. 1004)
    p. 1023 Seepage back into the creek
    p. 1033 Notice of Appropriation of Water 10/07/1908 R. Rowcroft
    p. 1037 Indenture 09/20/1912 Geo. C. Ellis and V.L. Ellis his wife to Edgar Hunter, Hunter Exhibit D
    p. 1039 patent to Joseph A. Long 01/18/1861, Hunter Exhibit E
    p. 1041 patent to William E. Small (Thomas Stillwell, assigned to William Barton Small) 10/01/1861, Hunter Exhibit F
    p. 1043 deed 04/07/1865 William B. Small to Joseph A. Long, Hunter Exhibit G
    p. 1044 deed 08/04/1868 Joseph A. Long to E.D. Mendenhall, Hunter Exhibit H
    p. 1046 deed 04/07/1865 William B. Small to John G. Wilson, Hunter Exhibit I
    p. 1048 deed 11/09/1868 John G. Wilson to James Munro, Hunter Exhibit J
    p. 1050 deed 02/07/1871 James Munro to D.D. Mendenhall, Hunter Exhibit K
    p. 1053 deed 06/13/1872 D.D. Mendenhall and Mary Ann Mendenhall, his wife, to C.B. Hull, Hunter Exhibit L
    p. 1056 deed 04/05/1875 C.B. Hull to N.B Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit M
    p. 1058 deed 10/26/1878 N.B Vanderford to Charles Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit (as if read)
    p. 1059 05/23/1887 Decree of final distribution of Charles Vanderford deceased to N.B. Vanderford, Martha Vanderford, Mary Anne Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit N #586 tr 1060
    p. 1062 deed 06/27/1887 Martha Vanderford & Mary Anne Vanderford to N.B Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit O
    p. 1065 deed 10/18/1886 N.B Vanderford to George Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit as if read
    p. 1066 deed 06/08/1899 George Vanderford to Edgar Hunter, Hunter Exhibit P
    p. 1068 deed 01/14/1897 N.B. Vanderford and Martha Vanderford, his wife, to Edgar Hunter, Hunter Exhibit Q
    p. 1069 deed 04/19/1901 Mary E. Vanderford to Edgar Hunter, Hunter Exhibit R
    p. 1072 patent 08/01/1877 to N.B. Vanderford, Ellen Hunter Exhibit as if read
    p. 1073 deed 10/06/1919 George Vanderford and Mary Vanderford, his wife, to Ellen Hunter, Ellen Hunter Exhibit A
    p. 1075 deed 09/22/1904 N.B. Vanderford and Edgar Hunter, Ellen Hunter Exhibit B
    p. 1078 deed 02/28/1919 Genevieve Hunter Brown & S.L. Brown to Ellen Hunter, Ellen Hunter Exhibit C
    p. 1080 patent 08/05/1869 to E.H. Miller, Hunter Exhibit as if read
    p. 1081 deed 05/22/1872 E.H. Miller to Cyrus B. Hall, Hunter Exhibit as if read
    p. 1081 deed 06/01/1872 7.H. Miller to N.B. Vanderford, Hunter Exhibit as if read
    p. 1083 error? s/b 4 W ?
    p. 1090-2 Morton arguing about whether pumping is economical, whether year-round flow enough for 125 acres existed?
    p. 1092-3 Markham stopped irrigating when water suit started
    p. 1097 Notice of Appropriation of Water 06/10/1885 Henry Burgett, Chastain Exhibit A
    p. 1098 deed 04/22/1909 A.D. Hickok to Emma A. [T.?] Witcher, with right to use certain waters from a ditch, Chastain Exhibit B
    p. 1100 patent to James W. Landergen 01/20/1875 as if read
    p. 1102 deed J.W. Landergen to Silas W. Tatam 01/06/1875 as if read
    p. 1103 Record of Certificate of Purchase, State of California to Samuel H. Raub 01/13/1888 as if read
    p. 1104 deed Samuel H. Raub to Richard S. Burgett 04/13/1885 as if read
    p. 1105 11/05/1879 deed S.W. Tatum to A. Montgomery as if read
    p. 1106 09/01/1880 deed A. Montgomery to H. Burgett as if read
    p. 1107 05/31/1890 Record of Decree of Distribution, estate of H. Burgett to Mary J. Burgett & Richard S. Burgett (?) as if read
    p. 1108 10/30/1897 deed introduced as certain heirs of Henry Burgett to Isabel Winifred Hills, but recites I.W. McGahan & George T. McGahan to Eva Adaline Hills & Mary Alice Dresser although some of the land described matches Decree of Distribution [so where did the McGahans come from?]
    p. 1109 deed 11/01/1897 Isabel Winifred Hills to R.S. Burgett
    p. 1110 deed 12/12/1899 R.S. Burgett & Lulu Burgett, his wife, to A.D. Hickok
    p. 1111 record of Judgment & decree quieting title, Asher D. Hickock vs. Egbert M. Polley, Alta A. Polley, Katie B. Hills, (minors, Eva B. Hills, guardian), Does A-M
    p. 1112 deed 09/27/1917 Emma T. Whitcher and W.E. Whitcher to W.J. Foutch

    p. 1113 Tuesday, 01/09/1923
    p. 1115 Edwards Exhibit A
    p. 1118 Edwards Exhibit B; Morton: "I'm not sure whether Mr. Edwards makes any riparian claim."
    p. 1121 Defendant Edgar Hunter's Exhibit C, Eriksen map of property owned by Edwards MISSING
    p. 1126 seepage back into the creek
    p. 1127 sub-irrigates the lower 3-4 acres
    p. 1129 sinks, finds bedrock, works its way back to the creek
    p. 1133 part sub-irrigates
    p. 1134 Line Creek sinks into the gravel before Hog Wallow Creek
    p. 1135 seepage back into the creek
    p. 1138 Phelps Exhibit A
    p. 1140 Notice of Allowance of Homestead Entry to John A. Harbison, 03/09/1921
    p. 1143 no matter how much water he takes out of the creek, the flow in the creek stays the same; Hog Wallow flows to Little Stony all summer
    p. 1145 Hog Wallow aka Middle Fork Little Stony
    p. 1149 Little Stony doesn't reach the reservoir in the summer 07/01, sometimes in June
    p. 1154 Morton objects to Phelps testimony on irrigating Harbison land before Harbison's patent

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 7 pp 1157 - 1301 [ index-1157 -- ]
    Wednesday, 01/10/1923
    Thursday, 01/11/1923
    Friday, 01/12/1923

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT L. BEDFORD

    Witnesses called:
    H.G. Bedford D 1254, X 1263, RD l265
    R.T. Bedford D 1265, X 1268, RD 1269, RX 1270
    E.T. Eriksen D 1271, X 1273, RD 1274

    DEFENDANT H.N. BRITTAN D 1166, X 1180

    Witnesses called:
    James L. Brittan D 1235, X 1237

    DEFENDANT JAMES O. BRITTAN

    Witnesses called:
    James L. Brittan D 1238, X 1245
    Records D 1251

    DEFENDANT M.L. CONKLIN, A CONKLIN and WELLS CONKLIN

    Witnesses called:
    M.L, Conklin D 1288, X 1298, RD 1301

    DEFENDANT J. DIEFENBACH Direct 1209

    DEFENDANT W.P. FORMAN D 1216, X 1229
    " Recalled D 1230, X 1231

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 1231, X 1232, RD 1233

    DEFENDANT S.A. HINELINE D 1157, X 1165

    DEFENDANT L. HUFFMASTER D 1274, X 1279 & 1282, RD 1286

    DEFENDANT IRMA MOON

    Witnesses called:
    C1aude F. Purkitt D ll84, X 1188
    Records - Title D 1l93

    DEFENDANT W.A. MORRIS D 1201

    Witnesses called:
    J. Diefenbach D 1207

    DEFENDANT D.P. RAY

    Witnesses called:
    H.N. Brittan D 1166, X 1180
    James L. Brittan D 1233

    Wednesday, 01/10/1923
    p. 1158 Rockville is in Sections 10 & 11 at bend below junction of Big & Little Stony
    p. 1159 Hineline Exhibit A, map sheet 9 MISSING
    p. 1169 "Oh, that is another one of those deer ranches."
    p. 1171 Ida Creek flows all summer, into Little Stony
    p. 1172 Morton objecting that one more acre testified as irrigated than in the pleadings?
    p. 1173 McCutchen: "reserve ruling on the motion until after the conclusion of all the hearings." [and when was that ever done?]
    p. 1176 Ray Exhibit A David P. Ray to S. J. Carpenter 05/22/1922
    p. 1177 Brittan Exhibit A Harry N. Brittan and Lula V. Brittan his wife to S.J. Carpenter 05/25/1922
    p. 1186 Trout Creek into S. Fork Big Stony
    p. 1192 Moon Glades
    p. 1193 patent to Sanders D. Gatewood 05/20/1884 Irma Moon Exhibit A
    p. 1195 deed Sanders D. Gatewood to A.S. Moon 02/13/1888 Irma Moon Exhibit B
    p. 1197 deed Alfred S. Moon to Iona O. Moon 07/16/1909 Irma Moon Exhibit C
    p. 1198 deed Iona O. Moon to Irma I. Moon and Pruda W. Moon 04/12/1911 Irma Moon Exhibit D

    p. 1201 Thursday 01/11/1923
    p. 1202 patent to William Adrian Morris 04/20/1882 his Exhibit A
    p. 1204 Smoky Valley Creek
    p. 1205-6 don't try to irrigate too much, "it goes up and sub-irrigates"
    p. 1206 Smoky Creek runs all summer, only one on the South Fork
    p. 1207 irrigation runs right back into the stresm
    p. 1210 Paradise Creek to Big Stony? Paradise runs year-round
    p. 1214 Diefenbach Exhibit A Notice of Appropriation 04/10/1907
    p. 1217 Notice of Appropriation W.P. Forman 11/25/1896, received in evidence, but not marked as an exhibit?
    p. 1220 North Fork Elk Creek year-round occasionally
    p. 1222 does a lot of sub-irrigating by varying the spot of application
    p. 1224 uses his irrigation seepage to water one garden
    p. 1225 Hoot Owl Canyon into Little Corbin Creek into Stony Creek at the foot of Corbin Grade
    p. 1234 Ida Creek
    p. 1239-42 Virginia Creek aka Brittan Creek [?], comes down St. Johns Mountain, runs year-round, into Middle Fork Stony Creek except in dry years
    p. 1243 waste or seepage back into the creek
    p. 1245 apple orchards at 2600 feet
    p. 1251 Notice of Appropriation 07/19/1907 James O. Brittan

    p. 1254 Friday 01/12/1923
    p. 1259 sheet 3 Eriksen map L. Bedford Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 1262 Stony at Section 9 (Elk Creek) never been short
    p. 1263 excess through the gravel back to Stony Creek
    p. 1265 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 1271 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 1276 Little Indian Creek, 5 N., runs all year from springs if heavy rainfall
    p. 1276-7 Morton & Rankin argue about riparian allegations in pleadings for Huffmaster
    p. 1279-1282 Morton hammering on Huffmaster about considering pumping from shallow underflow for his 75 irrigable acres
    p. 1289 Salt Creek above Newville on Conklin flows nearly every summer, can dry up late in the fall
    p. 1296 Water Notice Conklin Exhibit A 04/22/1892
    p. 1298 Conklin, North Fork into Stony stops flowing first of June, "and sometimes a great deal earlier than that"
    p. 1299 Salt Creek springs yield increasing water for Conklins for September
    p. 1300 North Fork runs into Stony again not much before first of November

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 8 pp 1302 - 1509 [ index-1302,1345-1346, 1499-1509 -- ]
    Tuesday, 02/06/1923
    Wednesday, 02/07/1923
    Thursday, 02/08/1923

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq, Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendents

    DEFENDANT HENRY J. CHASTAIN

    Witnesses cal1ed:
    Dennie O'Leary D 1302, X 1307

    DEFENDANT GEORGE C ELLIS

    Record of Title X 1352

    DEFENDANTS J.A. FLANAGAN, JOSEPH J. FLANAGAN, FRANCES D. FLANAGAN, ANNA FLANAGAN

    Witnesses callad:
    J.A. Flanagan Direct 1435, X 1493, RD 1498
    Record of Title D 1447

    DEFENDANT G.W. MARKHAM

    Record of Title D 1385

    DEFENDANTS F P. MASTERSON, Mrs. D.H. MASTERSON, J.K. MASTERSON

    Witnesses called:
    F.P. Masterson D 1499, X 1508, RD 1508, RX 1509

    DEFENDANT MARGUERITA WILLIAMS WELCH

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen D 1318, X 1320, RD 1323
    Record of Title D 1322

    DEFENDANTS HENRY WERTH and MAY N. WERTH

    Witnesses called:
    Henry Werth D 1330, X 1339, RD 1350
    Record of Title D 1331

    DEFENDANT F. C. WOOD
    Witnesses called:
    Dennie O'Leary D 1310, X 1313, RD 1314 & 1315, RX 1314 & 1315
    E.T. Eriksen D 1316, X 1317, Rdirect 1317

    Tuesday, 02/06/1923
    p. 1304 map sheet 11 Lewis Exhibit 8 [sic] MISSING [?]
    p. 1306 alfalfa gets foul: they plow up this Johnson grass; thence grain and after harvest sour clover weeds grow up,
    p. 1312 Johnson grass
    p. 1314 "it would cook eggs in the summer time, and that is when your alfalfa grows"
    p. 1315 "when you get further down the Creek it is all bedrock; there is water going underneath it; you pick up a little water there-- waste water from Kesselrings."
    p. 1316 Eriksen Map sheet 13 Defendants Lewises Exhibit B MISSING
    p. 1320 When the Feed Canal was excavated, the excavated materials (coarse gravel, small boulders) mostly all piled in between the Canal and the Creek
    p. 1322 patent Frederick Laux 07/31/1894
    p. 1322-b record of Decree of Distribution Estate of Frederick Laux, to widow Katherina Laux 08/05/1913
    p. 1325 deed Katherina Laux and Frederick Laux, Jr.to F.C. Wood 09/22/1914
    p. 1330 [Start of number machine stamp page numbers]
    p. 1331 deed Robert L. Neville to Henry Werth & May E. Werth 03/03/1917 Werth Exhibit A
    p. 1338 map Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 MISSING
    p. 1339-1345... MORTON setting up the WERTHS for later prosecution?
    p. 1340 Werth, rods or yards?
    p. 1345-6 Rankin, Morton & McCutchen back & forth on respective proofs for estoppel, prescription, riparian, appropriation, etc. --
    p. 1348 Morton baiting Werth on riparian proposals; Rankin objects, calls for conclusion of law, sustained
    p. 1349 Werth feels irrigating his land uses no water because it all flows back to the stream, Morton hammering on that
    pp. 1350-51, when irrigating, dig down 3 feet & find water, but before turning out the water there is none; not wasting any like up at Stonyford where it runs across the road all the time, etc.
    p. 1352 Record of Application George C. Ellis 12/31/1906
    p. 1354 patent State of California to Hiram Millsaps 01/07/1975
    p. 1356 deed Hiram Millsaps to Joseph Millsaps 07/20/1870
    p. 1359 patent State of California to N.B. Vanderford 08/01/1877
    p. 1362 deed N.B. Vanderford to Joseph Millsaps 12/07/1880
    p. 1363 record of Final Decree of Distribution, Estate of Joseph Millsaps, deceased, to Eliza Millsaps, Mary Powell, Virginia Lee Ellis, Melinda Ellis, Charles Millsaps, Joseph Millsaps 05/25/1893
    p. 1368 deed Elizabeth Millsaps, Melinda (Millsaps) Ellis, John C. Ellis (her husband), Pollie (Millsaps) Powell, John Powell (her husband), Joseph Millsaps, Charlie Millsaps to Virginia L. Ellis 05/25/1893
    p. 1371 deed Virginia L. (Millsaps) Ellis, George C. Ellis (her husband), Melinda (Millsaps) Ellis, John C. Ellis (her husband), Pollie (Millsaps) Powell, John Powell (her husband), Joseph Millsaps, Charles Millsaps to Eliza Millsaps 05/25/1893
    p. 1375 record of Final Decree of Distribution, Estate of Eliza Millsaps, deceased, to Mary Powell, Virginia Ellis, Charles Millsaps, Joseph Millsaps 11/14/1899
    p. 1380 deed Melinda Ellis to Virginia Ellis 10/31/1899
    p. 1382 deed Mary Powell, Joseph Millsaps, Charles Millsaps to Virginia Ellis 11/04/1899

    p. 1385 Wednesday 02/07/1923
    p. 1385 patent to Peter Counts 01/20/1862 (01/18/1861?)
    p. 1388 deed 10/22/1861 Peter Counts to Cyrus Sebring
    p. 1390 deed 02/21/1865 Cyrus Sebring to David Markham
    p. 1393 patent to William W. Markham 04/28/1887
    p. 1396 record, decree of distribution, Estate of David Markham 05/18/1903 to Emeline Markham
    p. 1399 deed William W. Markham to Emeline Markham
    p. 1401 deed Emeline Markham to W.H. Markham, S.S. Markham, G.W. Markham, D.A. Markham, E.R. Markham, Mary H. Osborn 07/09/1903
    p. 1403 deed Mary H. Osborn to W.H. Markham, S.S. Markham, G.W. Markham, D.A. Markham, E.R. Markham, 12/20/1916
    p. 1406 deed S.S. Markham, to W.H. Markham & D.A. Markham 05/24/1917
    p. 1408 deed W.H. Markham to Annie Markham 05/28/1918
    p. 1411 deed W.H. Markham & D.A. Markham to S.S. Markham 05/24/1917
    p. 1414 deed E.R. Markham & Blanche E. Markham (his wife), D.A. Markham & Alice H. Markham (his wife), S.S. Markham & Frances M. Markham (his wife), Annie Markham, G.W. Markham & Eva M. Markham (his wife) to G.W. Markham, D.W. Markham, G.E. Markham, L.D. Markham 09/11/1919
    p. 1419 record Decree of Distribution Estate of G.W. Markham to Eva M. Markham 02/21/1922
    p. 1422 deed E.R. Markham to Eva Markham 05/12/1922
    p. 1424 deed S.S. Markham to Eva Markham 05/18/1922
    p. 1427 deed D.A. Markham & Alice H. Markham (his wife), Annie Markham (widow of W.H. Markham), D.W. Markham, G.E. Markham, L.D. Markham to Eva M. Markham, 05/27/1922
    p. 1431 deed Eva Markham to D.W. Markham to 06/10/1922

    p. 1435 Thursday 02/08/1923
    p. 1435 Rankin presenting Masterson Brothers at request of Mr. Johnson
    p. 1439 without water it's very hard to keep the gophers out of the alfalfa
    p. 1442 seepage eventually back to the creek
    p. 1444 Mr. Flanagan (S. half of S/E 1/4 of Section 29, 23 N, 4 W.): seepage "goes down into the gravel and back into the creek. The entire area is underlaid by gravel the same as the gravel in the Creek, and as far as I can understand it is one continuous mass of gravel."
    p. 1446-8 Flanagan executed agreement with U.S granting conveyance facility land to U.S. while claiming right to use water from the creek, and after which U.S. told them to stop using the water.
    p. 1448 Agreement, J.A. Flanagan and Elizabeth A. Flanagan (his wife), F.D. Flanagan, J.J. Flanagan and Carrie A. Flanagan (his wife) to USA for $1 plus benefits of construction of irrigation works through their lands plus up to $250 for construction damage reserving right of way for ditch or wagon-road and 18" pipe or flume, and the right to use USA wagon bridge over its canal and build a fence, right of way covered in part by former John A. Towle right of way grant to Stony Creek Irrigation Company, which also included right to put in pipes or boxes to take out water, fencing, ditching, subordinating right to the actual water [?], Towle conveyance 5.8 acres or so. [ More USA bad faith? ]
    p. 1457 patent to John N. Hayton 06/24/1878.
    p. 1459 deed John N. Hayton to John A. Towle 07/31/1877.
    p. 1461 patent to Andrew J. Hargus 09/05/1861.
    p. 1462 deed Andrew J. Hargus to David J. Elmore 06/14/1859.
    p. 1464 deed Andrew J. Hargus to Hiram T. Elmore & David J. Elmore 10/31/1859.
    p. 1466 deed Albert G. Davis, Administrator of the estate of W.H. Elmore, to J.J. & H. T. Elmore 11/23/1861.
    p. 1470 deed Hiram T. Elmore to James J. Elmore 05/07/1863.
    p. 1472 deed James J. Elmore to S.A. Gyle 06/04/1875.
    p. 1474 deed S.A. Gyle to John A. Towle 09/23/1876.
    p. 1477 patent John A. Towle 03/10/1884.
    p. 1479 deed A.L. Taylor, administrator of the estate of John A. Towle, to Francis Houghton Company 05/01/1805.
    p. 1483 deed Francis Houghton Company to J.A. Flanagan, F.D. Flanagan, J.J. Flanagan 02/03/1906.
    p. 1486 deed John A. Towle to Stony Creek Irrigation Company 04/17/1890, for both chain of title and reservations and stipulations that bind USA
    p. 1489 deed J.A. Flanagan and Exlizabeth A. Flanagan (his wife), F.D. Flanagan, J.J. Flanagan and Carrie A. Flanagan (his wife), to USA 05/24/1910,
    p. 1494 as he took it Burch threatened Flanagan with arrest if he didn't stop pumping from the creek
    p. 1495 Rankin vs. Morton on the meaning of the contract
    p. 1498 [Flanagan kept from exercising riparian rights by threats from Burch? what does that do to priorities?]
    p. 1499-1509 Mastersons --
    p. 1504 where the pump was located, there is a flow year around; water rises from springs to flow for about a half mile along there
    p. 1505 on the upper ranch, from Ira Mecum and his wife, and from Frisbie, there was about 1500 feet of 7-inch irrigation pipe and an engine to irrigate with, or was it 900 feet of pipe? left behind some 5 years before.
    p. 1506-7 good loam, would produce fine crops with irrigation, waters slope towards creek, excess would return to the creek
    p. 1507-8 North Fork ceases to flow into Stony May most years, June in an exceptionally wet year; could use a ditch diversion in the spring only, quite a bit of water in holes to July or August, pumped with small pumps clear into September
    p. 1508 Morton hammering on whether irrigation is needed for the Masterson lands; response is that the expense would be small, the rewards good, but no intention to resume pumping in the immediate future; much better alfalfa with the pump

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 9 pp 1510 - 1607 [ index-1510,1545-1546 -- ]
    Tuesday, 02/27/1923

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

    Duard F. Geis, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    U.W. Brown, Esq. (of Messrs. Brown & Albery), Colusa, Calif.
    For their respective Defendants

    DEFENDANTS FOUTS SPRINGS COMPANY AND C.H.GLENN

    Witnesses called:
    C.W. Dennison Direct 1511, X 1514
    R.J. Lowry D 1515, X 1521, RD 1534, RX 1536
    F.C, Green D 1574, X 1576, RD 1578 & 1580 & 1582, RX 1579 & 1581

    DEFENDANTS F.M. KESSELRING and CHAS. E. PEARSON

    Witnesses called:
    C.W. Dennison D 1539, X 1547, RD 1550
    F.M. Kesselring D 1551, X 1561, RD 1573
    " F.M. Kesselring Recalled D 1538, X 1588, RD 1594
    I.W. McGahan D 1598, X 1604

    p. 1510 Tuesday 02/27/1923
    p. 1514 Morton (one of several Tr locations) exhibits an awareness of stream flow formulas: Cutter's formula, slope, coefficient of roughness [smoking out home-grown engineers?]
    p. 1512 surveyors map of water system Fouts Springs Company Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 1515 6-inch pipeline mainly used for domestic purposes
    p. 1519 soils very porous, need a big head, water runs right back into the creek; ranger station supplied by irrigation recharge on Mill Creek, Mill itself is dry summers
    p. 1520 swimming tank, when emptied contents go to irrigation
    p. 1525 water year-round
    p. 1531-2 water applied soaks in quickly and comes out along the creek banks and back into the creek
    p. 1533-4 pipeline water for the hotel, cottages, garden, swimming tank
    p. 1535 bath house
    p. 1542 map Kesselring ditches, flumes, vicinity Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 1545-6 explanation of the general stipulation regarding riparian proofs --
    p. 1554-5 Morton objects to testimony regarding previous creek channel locations, reserved ruling [until when?]
    p. 1560 Salt Creek usually dry by 1st of June
    p. 1561 Brown & Morton sparring on limits of cross; McCutchen rules for Morton
    p. 1563 maps, Stite's Exhibit A ( sheet 12) /Lewis Exhibit A (sheet 11) blueprints, both MISSING
    p. 1567 Kesselring cut many of the Stonyford town lots out of the supply from his ditch (including the Catholic Church) because of the Angle suit and because they were bothering him for water when he was trying to irrigate; may be some who are simply taking it while he's not watching
    p. 1569 Kesselring concedes that there is not enough water for all to irrigate at once
    p. 1571 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 1571-2 unused back into the creek
    p. 1575 Morton & McCutchen disagreeing on whether or not Geis was leading the witness?
    pp. 1580-2 High Line ditch for Fouts Springs so leaky that a full head of water at the intake became 3" or less at the destination
    pp. 1585-6 Kesselring: Lewis lands not riparian, their diversion above Kesselring, many times they've taken water away from him & Pearson since 1910, returned it back once
    pp. 1587-8 Brown ditch half as large as Kesselring, Lewis a third, Lewis interferes with Kesselring when diverting late season, Brown diversion lower than Kesselring but 4 years ago Brown moved diversion to Kesselring dam which interferes with Kesselring diversions mid-July on; Kesselring waiting for this suit to settle the disputed priorities
    p. 1590 Kesselring the oldest ditch on the stream
    p. 1594 Brown, Bickford & Hickford fell out, Brown moved diversion to below Kesselring dam, & when short & after Chastain arrived, moved diversion to Kesselring's dam, diverted for Brown, Chastain, & Sutliff
    p. 1603 Lewis ditch 3 years to construct, Lewis lands not riparian

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 10 pp 1608 - 1961 [ index-1608 -- ]
    Wednesday, 02/28/1923

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

    U.W. Brown, Esq. (of Messrs. Brown & Albery), Colusa, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants

    DEFENDANT JOHN M. ADAMS

    Record of Title D 1867

    DEFENDANT DORA A. FENDER

    Record of Title D 1886

    DEFENDANTS F.M. KESSELRING and CHAS. E. PEARSON

    Witnesses called:
    H.H. Brittan D 1608, X 1610
    Chas. E. Pearson D 1611, X 1620, RD 1626
    F.M. Kesselring D 1627, X 1631 & 1636, RD 1633 & 1635, RX 1635 & 1636
    E.T. Eriksen D 1860
    Record of Title - Kesselring D 1636
    " - Pearson Direct 1812

    DEFENDANT TIM O'LEARY

    Witnesses called;
    U.W. Brown D 1861, X 1863

    p. 1608 Wednesday 02/28/1923
    p. 1609 H.H. Brittan, foreman for Stony Creek Improvement Company, enlarged & built flumes for Kesselring ditch
    p. 1613 Broncho grass, of no value; 75% of the value of the land is in the water right
    p. 1615 McCutchen tired of Morton's objections?
    p. 1615-6 dam across south channel diverting to north to keep Stony from washing out flumes, ditches, buildings
    p. 1620 Mr. Brown & Mr. Chastain stopped permitting Kesselring & Pearson to dam the north channel to divert water to their south intake; Brown & Chastain divert water around the Kesselring dam to below the dam & then take it out at their headgate below the dam?
    p. 1621 sheet 12 Eriksen map Stites Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 1622 irrigation from waste water from irrigation above
    p. 1623, 1626 alfalfa used for pasture, the stand tramped out [?]
    p. 1626 Morton hammering on irrigating 2 or 3 thousand acres more lands
    p. 1628 water is 75% of the value of the property
    p. 1629 map sheet #11 Lewis Exhibit A MISSING
    p. 1631, 1636 John M. Morris worked on East Park, and then on the Lewis ditch
    p. 1634, 1764 a mill on Kesselring's land?
    p. 1636 07/22/1870 John L. Smith Water Right Claim
    p. 1638 deed Martin V. Smith to John L. Smith 06/19/1880
    p. 1640 deed David J. Goulding to John L. Smith 08/29/1883
    p. 1642 patent to John M. Smith 06/15/1875
    p. 1644 deed John M. Smith to J.L. Smith 05/17/1879
    p. 1646 deed Elizabeth Smith to Jeremiah Smith 12/09/1878
    p. 1648 patent to Elizabeth Smith 10/10/1879
    p. 1650 patent to Jeremiah Smith 11/05/1878
    p. 1652 patent to Richard Smith 10/10/1879
    p. 1655 patent to Richard Smith 10/10/1879 [yup, 2 patents]
    p. 1657 deed Jeremiah Smith and Richard Smith to John L. Smith 11/15/1880
    p. 1659 patent to Daniel Walter Smith 09/16/1889
    p. 1662 deed Daniel Walter Smith to John L. Smith 10/14/1888
    p. 1664 patent to Martin Van Buren Smith 11/01/1881
    p. 1666 patent to David J. Goulding 03/15/1884
    p. 1668 deed John L. Smith and Elizabeth Smith (his wife) to James H. Donleavy and James H. Smith 09/15/1888
    p. 1671 deed John L. Smith and Elizabeth Smith to James H. Donleavy and James H. Smith 09/15/1888 [yup, 2 deeds]
    p. 1674 deed J.H. Donleavy and James H. Smith to C.H. Street 05/23/1889
    p. 1677 deed C.H. Street to J.H. Donleavy and James H. Smith 10/04/1889
    p. 1679 deed John H. Smith to S.C. Percival 10/23/1889
    p. 1682 deed John L. Smith to James H. Donleavy and S.C. Percival 10/24/1889
    p. 1685 deed James H. Donleavy and Mary Donleavy (his wife) to H.C. Stilwell and William H. Ward [not W.W.] 12/12/1889
    p. 1689 deed S.C. Percival to P.D. Gardemeyer 12/11/1889
    p. 1701 deed P.D. Gardemeyer to H.C. Stilwell and W.H. Ward 12/12/1889
    p. 1705 deed William H. Ward to Henry C. Stilwell 01/13/1890
    p. 1707 deed Henry C. Stilwell to William S. Tevis and Will B. Fisher 04/12/1890
    p. 1710 deed William S. Tevis and Will B. Fisher and Henry C. Stilwell to Stoney Creek Improvement Company 04/28/1890
    p. 1710 deed H.C. Stilwell and William H. Ward to Stoney Creek Improvement Company 11/01/1890
    p. 1716 deed Stoney Creek Improvement Company to A.A. Sanders 11/04/1891
    p. 1724 deed H.C. Stilwell and W.H. Ward to Grace L. Stilwell 12/05/1891
    p. 1724 deed A.A. Sanders and Sarah A. Sanders (his wife) to H.C. Stilwell and Grace L. Stilwell (his wife) 12/05/1891
    p. 1729 deed John R. Snead to J.F. Moseley 12/07/1891
    p. 1732 deed J.F. Moseley and Mary A. Moseley (his wife) to Sidney Newell 12/09/1891
    p. 1732 record of certified copy of order confirming the sale of real estate in the matter of the Estate of J.F. Moseley, an insolvent debtor, to W.D. Buckley 05/09/1893
    p. 1739 record of Lis Pendens in Colusa Superior Court, Mary E. Marshall, executrix of the last will and testament of S.A. Marshall, deceased, plaintiff, -vs- Stoney Creek Improvement Company, a corportion, German Savings and Loan Society, a corporation, Amos A. Sanders, H.C. Stilwell, John R. Snead, J.F. Moseley, Sidney Newell, James A. Gibbs, Grace L. Stilwell, wife of Henry C. Stillwell [sic], William A. Frederick, William H. Ragan, John L. Smith, Frank E. Sanders, O.W. Sanders, J.A. Baxter, George H. Kellogg, William E. Proctor, Guy McMurtry, Forest S. Rowley, [7 Does], and D.A. Guernsey and M.D. Eaton, assignees in insolvency of J.F. Moseley, insolvent, Defendants (2nd mortgage [p. 1763, 1765], SCIC to S.A. Marshall; mortgage included Stonyford townsite, 15 blocks: 12 & 3 - 10 lots, 4 - 4 lots, 5 - 36 lots, 6 - 34 lots, 7-12 & 15 - 24 lots, 13 & 14 - 36 lots; block 12 mentioned twice, 1 & 2 not at all, suspect the first "12" is actually 1,2 & 3). filed
    p. 1749 record of suit of Mary E. Marshall, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of S.A. Marshall, Deceased, plaintiff vs. Stoney Creek Improvement Company, et al., filed 04/28/1893 (Colusa County #1862 ?)
    p. 1771 Decree of Foreclosure, with provision for deficiency judgment [block & lot confusion carried over into Decree?], 09/13/1893
    p. 1780 Sheriff's certificate of Sale on Foreclosure, 12/23/1893
    p. 1782 record of Lis Pendens 11/02/1893 German Savings and Loan Society, plaintiff, James H. Donleavey, James H. Smith, Sidney Newell, Mary E. Marshall, executrix of the Last Will and Testament of S.A. Marshall, deceased, Stoney Creek Improvement Company (a corporation), Amos A. Sanders, H.C. Stillwell, Grace L. Stillwell, John R. Snead, J.F. Moseley, M.D. Eaton, and D.A Gurnsey, assignes [sic] in insolvency of J.F. Moseley, W.D. Buckley, John L. Smith, Charles H. Holt and Benjamin Holt, partners carrying on business under the firm name of Holt Brothers, [8 does],
    p. 1785 record of action Colusa County, German Savings and Loan Society, plaintiff, -vs- James H. Donleavey, et al. [1889 $25,000 mortgage] 10/28/1893
    p. 1796 Decree of Foreclosure and Sale, German Savings and Loan Society vs. James H. Donleavy [sic], et al., now up to $32,293.90 01/06/1896
    p. 1800 record of Sheriff's Certificate of Sale on Foreclosure, to German Savings and Loan Society 02/17/1896 [Brown's 02/07 in error]
    p. 1803 deed E.W. Jones, Sheriff of County of Colusa, to German Savings and Loan Society, a corporation [confusion on lots & blocks only partly cleared up in these later deeds? some lots never actually forclosed on?], 02/17/1896
    p. 1807 deed German Savings and Loan Society to F.M. Kesselring and Anna May Kesselring (his wife) 12/09/1910
    p. 1812 patent to John Martin Smith 05/03/1881
    p. 1814 deed John Martin Smith to Arthur T. Welton 12/11/1880
    p. 1816 deed Arthur T. Welton to H.C. Stilwell 12/04/1890
    p. 1818 deed H.C. Stilwell and Grace L. Stilwell to A.A. Sanders 11/09/1891
    p. 1820 deed A.A. Sanders and Sarah A. Sanders, his wife, and H.C. Stillwell and Grace L. Stilwell, his wife, to John R. Snead 12/05/1891
    p. 1823 deed John R. Snead to J.F. Moseley 12/07/1891
    p. 1826 deed J.F. Moseley and Mary A. Moseley, his wife, to Sidney Newell 12/09/1891
    p. 1828 record of Certified Copy of Order Confirming Sale of Real Estate in the Matter of the Estate of J.F. Moseley, an insolvent debtor to W.D. Buckley 05/12/1893
    p. 1831 record of Lis Pendens in suit of Mary E. Marshall, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of S.A. Marshall, Deceased, plaintiff, fs. Henry C. Stilwell, et al., Defendants, Colusa Superior Court recorded 04/02/1894
    p. 1833 record in Suit No. 1920 Colusa County Superior Court, Mary E. Marshall, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Samuel A. Marshall v. Henry C. Stilwell, Sidney Newell, W.D. Buckley, and Elizabeth C. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of John L. Smith, Deceased., 12/04/1890
    p. 1843 Decree of foreclosure and order of sale, Mary E. Marshall, etc. v. Henry C. Stilwell, et al., 04/02/1894
    p. 1848 record of Certificate of Sale 04/30/1894 sold to Mary E. Mashall
    p. 1850 deed E.W. Jones, Sheriff Colusa County to Mary E. Marshall 12/07/1896
    p. 1855 deed Mary E. Marshall and Jane L. Paxton to E.R. Seidell 12/03/1901
    p. 1857 deed E.R. Seidell and Katie I. Siedell, husband and wife, to Chas. E. Pearson 01/03/1912
    p. 1861 statement by attorney U.W. Brown on behalf of defendant Tim O'Leary, in 1889 with 2 other persons purchased Cook's Springs Mineral Water Company, was President for 20 years; excess water from O'Leary ditch immediately drained into Indian Creek, J.D. Thralls patented it 1910-ish, and took water from Indian Creek via pipe, at that location Indian Creek ran year-round unlike below where it dried up below the bridge
    p. 1867 patent State of California [school lands, ] to Calvin C. Newton 12/06/1894
    p. 1869 deed Calvin C. Newton to O. Gobel 02/28/1895
    p. 1871 deed O. Gobel to C. Boardman 04/19/1898
    p. 1873 deed C. Boardman to G.E. Newton 11/18/1899
    p. 1875 deed G.E. Newton to A.C. Mayfield 07/18/1904
    p. 1877 deed A.C. Mayfield and Mary Mayfield, his wife to Mrs. Britana Tolson 11/14/1905
    p. 1880 deed Mrs. Britana Tolson to G.R. Alexander 12/23/1909
    p. 1882 deed G.R. Alexander to H.H. Harlan and J.A. Manor 08/09/1910
    p. 1882 deed H.H. Harlan and J.A. Manor to John N. Adams 12/21/1910
    p. 1886 patent to Winthrop P. Cheney 11/20/1874
    p. 1889 patent to Winthrop P. Cheney 11/20/1874 [2 of them]
    p. 1892 patent to Frederic Clay 02/27/1875
    p. 1895 patent to William Stafford 02/27/1875 [same date]
    p. 1898 patent to Peter Stromenger 11/25/1879
    p. 1901 deed William Stafford to Frederic Clay 01/23/1874
    p. 1905 deed Winthrop Cheney to Frederic Clay 12/29/1874
    p. 1908 deed Winthrop P. Cheney to Frederic Clay 12/29/1874 [same date]
    p. 1911 deed Frederic Clay to Mrs. Sadie I. Clay (T 6 N?) 05/24/1875
    p. 1917 deed Benjamin Pearl and Levi Stevens to Merchants Exchange Bank of San Francisco (trustees for DOT by the Clays) 05/22/1878
    p. 1925 deed Merchants Exchange Bank of San Francisco to C. Boardman 11/15/1882
    p. 1930 deed Peter Stromenger to John Boggs 06/18/1878
    p. 1933 record of Decree of Distribution estate of John Boggs, Deceased, to Louise E. Boggs, Frank S. Boggs, Alice J. Boggs, Fred H. Boggs 10/05/1904
    p. 1938 deed Louise E. Boggs, Frank S. Boggs, Alice J. Boggs and Fred H. Boggs to C.H. Totman 12/02/1908
    p. 1941 deed W.W. Boardman, administrator of Estate of Cornelius Boardman to W.J. Lovelady and T.F. Lovelady 09/20/1909
    p. 1946 deed Charles H. Totman to W.J. Lovelady and T.F. Lovelady 11/07/1912
    p. 1949 deed Charles H. Totman to W.J. Lovelady and T.F. Lovelady 01/21/1913
    p. 1952 deed W.J. Lovelady and T.F. Lovelady to Mathias Jorgensen 06/25/1914
    p. 1956 deed Mathias Jorgensen and Anne M. Jorgensen, his wife, to Elmer Huttmann 04/21/1915
    p. 1956 deed Elmer Huttmann to Dora A. Derby 04/21/1915

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 11 pp 1962 - 2254 [index-1962 -- ]
    Thursday, 03/01/1923

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

    U.W. Brown, Esq. (of Messrs. Brown & Albery), Colusa, Calif.
    Appearing for Defendants represented by Thomas Rutledge, Esq., Colusa, Calif.


    DEFENDANT JOHN M.ADAMS

    Witnesses called:
    John M. Adams D 2026, X 2029, RD 2030

    DEFENDANT J.H. DRISCOLL

    Witnesses called:
    Rufus G. Stites D 2043, X 2045
    Record of Title D 2237

    DEFENDANT DORA A. FENDER

    Witnesses called:
    A.L. Fender D 2030, X 2033
    W.J. Lovelady D 2033, X 2035

    DEFENDANT H.H. HARSHAW

    Witnesses called:
    H.H. Harshaw D 1989, X 1991, RD 1994

    DEFENDANT E.C. KAERTH

    Witnesses called:
    E.C. Kaerth D 1995
    H.S. Green D 1999
    L.J. Gilmour D 2003
    Record of Title D 2087

    DEFENDANTS J.F. KENNEDY and R.P. KENNEDY

    Witnesses called:
    H.S. Green D 1999
    L.J. Gilmour D 2003
    J.R. Kennedy D 2005, X 2007
    Record of Title D 2246

    DEFENDANTS C.W. LOVELACE and his Successors:
    W.H. ASH, BYRON D. BECKWITH, M.T.DOOLING, B.F.GOULD and C.W.LOVELACE

    Witnesses called:
    L.J. Gilmour D 1978, X 1986, RD 1988
    H.H. Harshaw D 1989, X 1991, RD 1994
    F.C. Kaerth D 1995,
    H.S. Green D 1999
    Record of Title D 2047

    DEFENDANT ANNIE EVANS LOVELADY

    Witnesses called:
    John M. Adams D 2025
    E. T. Eriksen D 2025
    U.W. Brown D 2087
    Record of Title D 2084

    DEFENDANTS W.J. LOVELADY, T.F. LOVELADY, and ANNIE EVANS LOVELADY

    Witnesses called:
    W.J, Lovelady D 2008 & 2020, X 2017 & 2024
    U.W. Brown D 2170
    Record of Title D 2127

    DEFENDANT JOHN W. MILLSAPS

    Witnesses called:
    John W. Millsaps D 1962, X 1966, RD 1971
    W.J. Lovelady D 1973, X 1976
    J.F. Stites 1976, X 1978
    Record of Title D 2172

    DEFENDANT J.F. STITES

    Witnesses called:
    J.F. Stites D 2036, X 2039
    U.W. Brown D 2109
    Record of Title D 2093

    DEFENDANT RUFUS G. STITES

    Witnesses called:
    Rufus G. Stites D 2039, X 2042
    Record of Title D 2113

    p. 1962 Thursday, 03/01/1923
    p. 1963 Hypheles Creek flows year-round at the mouth of the canyon, dries up below that
    p. 1964 the water triples the value of the land
    p. 1965 seepage, if any, back into Hypheles Creek
    p. 1972 Hypheles flows as far as the reservoir to mid-July; Hypheles alluvium very rocky
    p. 1978 Caldwell place misidentified in Secs 30 & 31 T17N R7W? s/b 18N?
    pp. 1979-1980 Paradise Creek, Paradise Valley, Happy Camp
    p. 1983-4 Paradise Creek, year-round, from Snow Mountain into Middle Fork Big Stony, a good trout stream
    p. 1988, 1994 waste or seepage back into Paradise or Middle Fork
    p. 1994 Morton objecting to leading, conversationally, interjected, not looking for a ruling
    p. 1998 unnamed tributary of Mills/South Fork, runs year-round, seepage or waste back to that tributary
    p. 2006 irrigate from a spring, doesn't flow to any creek
    p. 2012 water runs scarce in Little Stony in August
    p. 2016 2/3 [?] of the value of the land is the water
    p. 2016-8 irrigate from Little Stony into June, partial into July; water sinks in fast, gravelly & rocky underneath, some years ceases to flow
    p. 2020-1 Cole Creek, now Cold Creek? runs year-round
    p. 2022 irrigates 1-1/2 to 2 acres of garden & orchard from a spring, which doesn't run to the creek.
    p. 2024 Cole into Trout into Little Stony
    p. 2027 Goat Mountain, Trout Creek
    p. 2029 apple orchard, back into the stream
    p. 2032 2/3 of land value is the water; surplus back into the creek; runs dry in June
    p. 2035 water triples the value
    p. 2038 3 to 4 times as valuable with the water
    p. 2039 seepage back to the creek
    p. 2041 springs at head of Line Creek, year-round flow
    p. 2043 North Fork Big Stony & Goulding Creek

    p. 2047 Record of title in case of Defendant C.W. Lovelace, and successors: W.H. Ash, Byron D. Beckwith, M.T. Dooling, B.F. Gould, and C.W. Lovelace
    p. 2047 patent to John Alexander Caldwell 11/09/1896
    p. 2049 petition of Mary V. Caldwell, surviving wife in Estate of J.A. Caldwell to set apart for her a homestead, open court, 05/17/1910
    p. 2054 Caldwell, decree of same? 02/03/1913 [both read like a decree]
    p. 2059 Order in Estate of Mary V. Caldwell selling to C.W. Lovelace 12/01/1913
    p. 2062 deed from Jennie Harris, Administratrix of Estate of Mary V. Caldwell to C.W. Lovelace 12/01/1913
    p. 2067 deed C.W. Lovelace to E.C. Kaerth 12/01/1913
    p. 2070 deed E.C. Kaerth to C.W. Lovelace 12/17/1918
    p. 2073 deed C.W. Lovelace and Nellie C. Lovelace, his wife, to B.F. Gould, R.E. Blevins, W.J. Ash, and Byron D. Beckwith 04/16/1921
    p. 2076 deed R.E. Blevins and Lulu H. Blevins, his wife to M.T. Dooling 09/01/1921
    p. 2079 deed C.W. Lovelace and Nellie C. Lovelace, his wife, to H.H. Harshaw 11/15/1919
    p. 2082 deed Mollie Caldwell to Jacob Diefenbach 02/29/1912

    p. 2084 Record of Title in the Case of Defendant Annie Evans Lovelady
    p. 2084 patent to Annie Evans 11/03/1905

    p. 2087 Record of Title in the Case of the Defendant E.C. Kaerth
    p. 2087 statement by U.W. Brown: Annie Evans and Annie Evans Lovelady is one and the same person
    p. 2087 patent to Mollie Cheney, widow of John W. Cheney 06/13/1910
    p. 2090 deed Mollie Cheney to E.C. Kaerth 02/25/1916

    p. 2093 Record of Title in the Case of the Defendant J.F. Stites
    p. 2093 patent to Christofer [sic] C. Truett 06/01/1882
    p. 2095 deed C.C. Truett to John Stanley 09/21/1883
    p. 2097 deed John Stanley to T.H. Harlan 09/16/1884
    p. 2099 deed Thomas H. Harlan to James M. Moss 11/24/1890
    p. 2101 deed James M. Moss to Eliza Jane Wilson 08/03/1894
    p. 2103 deed Jarrett Maupin, Cora Stites, Martha Hastings, Edith May Riggs, and Thos. M. Wilson to Frank Wilson 05/16/1904
    p. 2107 deed Samuel Wilson to Frank Wilson 08/11/1904
    p. 2109 statement by U.W. Brown: these last 2 deeeds are from heirs-at-law of Eliza Jane Wilson, no apparent adminstration of her estate, Samuel Wilson was her surviving husband; MORTON: deeds are irrelevant and incompetent to close a chain of title; MCCUTCHEN: will reserve ruling under Rule 46
    p. 2110 deed Frank Wilson and Emiley E. Wilson to J.F. Stites 05/22/1907; MORTON: same objection; MCCUTCHEN: same ruling

    p. 2113 Record of Title in the case of Defendant Rufus G. Stites
    p. 2113 patent to William A. Stites 07/31/1894
    p. 2115 deed William A. Stites to Nancy A. Stites, his wife 07/10/1914
    p. 2119 deed Nancy A. Stites to Rufus G. Stites 05/08/1917
    p. 2122 deed Nancy A. Stites to Rufus G. Stites 03/12/1918
    p. 2124 deed Rufus G. Stites to Mary Belle Adams 12/21/1921

    p. 2127 FRIDAY, 03/02/1923

    p. 2127 Record of Title in the Case of defendants W.J. & T.F. Lovelady
    p. 2127 patent to Christian Willgansz 05/15/1877
    p. 2131 patent to Joshua Calvin Smith 03/10/1884
    p. 2133 patent to Jonathan Ping 10/13/1893
    p. 2136 patent to Charles H. Totman 12/13/1901
    p. 2139 deed Christian Willgansz to Cornelius Boardman 11/29/1886
    p. 2142 deed C. Boardman to Christian Willgansz 03/11/1887
    p. 2145 deed Christian Willgansz to Margaret Willgansz 09/13/1890
    p. 2149 deed Rachel C. Keffer to Jonathan Ping 04/03/1888
    p. 2152 deed Jonathan Ping to Susan Ping 08/08/1893
    p. 2155 deed J.C. Smith to J.A. Ryan 12/05/1894
    p. 2158 deed Christian Willgansz and Margaret Willgansz to William J. Lovelady and Thomas F. Lovelady 08/20/1901
    p. 2162 deed Susan Ping, widow of J. Ping, to William Joshua Lovelady 03/14/1898
    p. 2165 deed J.A. Ryan to William J. Lovelady 09/26/1898
    p. 2168 deed Charles H. Totman and his wife Rachel Totman to W.J. and T.F. Lovelady 05/28/1903
    p. 2170 U.W. Brown: Thomas Franklin Lovelady and William Joshue [sic] Lovelady are the same as W.J. and T.F. Lovelady respectively, and Thomas F. is the same as Thomas Franklin.

    p. 2172 Recod of Title in case of Defendant John W. Millsaps
    p. 2172 patent to hiers of Adolphus D'Artney 05/01/1875
    p. 2174 Decree of Distribution Estate of Adolphus D'Artenay to Mina Weyand, Elizabeth Lukes, Eugene D'Artenay, Thomas G. D'Artenay, Adolp. P. D'Artenay and John D'Artenay 07/15/1889
    p. 2176 deed Mina Weyand, Elizabeth Lukes, Eugene d'Artenay, Adolp P. d'Artenay to Thomas G. d'Artenay and John d'Artenay 03/10/1890
    p. 2179 deed Mina Weyand and Adolp P. d'Artenay to Thomas G. d'Artenay and John d'Artenay 05/26/1890
    p. 2183 deed John d'Artenay to T.E. Ehrenberg 06/11/1892
    p. 2185 deed John d'Artenay to Theodore E. Ehrenberg 07/07/1892
    p. 2187 deed John d'Artenay to Theodore E. Ehrenberg 10/31/1892
    p. 2191 deed John d'Artenay to Theodore E. Ehrenberg 05/24/1893
    p. 2193 deed Theodore E. Ehrenberg to Evelyn J. Arleigh, a widow 08/25/1894
    p. 2196 deed Mrs. Evelyn J. Arleigh, a widow to Theodore E. Ehrenberg 08/20/1894
    p. 2198 deed Theodore E. Ehrenberg to Andrew A. Johnson 09/19/1894
    p. 2201 record of Articles of Incorporation , German Savings and Loan Society, 02/10/1868
    p. 2208 record of Lis Pendens, German Savings foreclosure suit against Thomas G. d'Artenay, Theodore E. Ehrenberg, W.A. Hampton, J.D. Rich, Andrew A. Johnson, 2 Does, 05/24/1895
    p. 2210 record of Decree of Foreclosure and Sale, 11/25/1895
    p. 2214 record of Sheriff's Certificate of Sale, 12/30/1895
    p. 2217 deed Sheriff E.W. Jones to The German Savings and Loan Society 07/03/1896
    p. 2221 record of Mortgage, Thomas G. d'Artenay and Theodore E. Ehrenberg to The German Savings and Loan Society 10/31/1892
    p. 2231 deed The German Savings and Loan Society to John W. Millsaps 04/15/1909
    p. 2236 MORTON objects to anything relating to Section 9 as not named in the pleadings, sustained, Mr. Brown notes an exception to the ruling. [ambush?]
    p. 2237 patent to Charles F. Gray 11/21/1902
    p. 2240 deed Charles F. Gray to Carrie R. Driscoll 02/25/1903
    p. 2243 deed Carrie R. Driscoll to J.N. Driscoll [in testimony, J.H. Driscoll] 08/19/1907
    p. 2246 deed Chester M. Goodnow and Daisy M. Parker, formerly Daisy M. Goonow, and Laura P. Orengo, formerly Laura P. Goodnow, to C.W. Lovelace 09/20/1916
    p. 2249 deed C.W. Lovelace to J.R. Kennedy and George Greenwalt 12/15/1916
    p. 2252 deed George Greenwalt to J.R. Kennedy 11/09/1917

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 12 pp 2255 - 2320 [ index-2258 -- ]
    Monday, 03/05/1923

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

    Howard J. Piersol, Esq., Oakland, Calif.
    C.L. Witten, Esq., San Jose, Calif.
    For their respective Defendants

    DEFENDANT J.E. AYER

    Witnesses called:
    Bayard Knock D 2302, X 2304 & 2306, RD 2308, RX 2309
    S.E. Ayer D 2309, X 2313, RD 2317, RX 2318 & 2319

    DEFENDANT E.K. PIERSON [PIERSOL]

    Witnesses called:
    F.C. Piersol D 2289, X 2294
    Record of Title D 2256

    p. 2255 Monday 03/05/1923
    p. 2256 Edith Kinsey Peirsol Exhibit A; MORTON, comment on the "stipulated objection", "of a general character and refers to the allegations in the replications which have to do with the resistance to riparian right claims". --
    p. 2258 Peirsol's Exhibit B
    p. 2259 patent to Janet McIntyre 10/13/1893
    p. 2262 Estate of Janet McIntyre, deceased, order confirming sale by Walter Dicksonm, Administrator, to H.D. Knight 03/14/1910
    p. 2265 deed Walter Dickson, Administrator of the Estate of Janet McIntyre, to H.D. Knight 03/14/1910
    p. 2270 deed H.D. Knight to A.R. McIntyre 05/08/1912
    p. 2273 patent to Andrew Robert McIntyre 04/06/1897
    p. 2276 deed Andrew R. McIntyre and Mary McIntyre, his wife, to Fred S. Lewis 01/18/1913
    p. 2279 deed Fred S. Lewis and Rita Inez Lewis, his wife to Edith Kinsey Peirsol, 07/18/1918
    p. 2282 deed Alice K. Peirsol to Edith K. Peirsol 04/25/1921
    p. 2285-6 Notice of Appropriation of Water, 02/28/1903; MORTON objects, irrelevant and incompetent to show any water right for any of the lands described in the answer....; Peirsol, deed to follow? McCutchen, admitted subject to motion to strike at conclusion of hearing
    p. 2287-8 attention to a deed already offered, Andrew R. McIntyre and mary McIntyre his wife to Fred S. Lewis, water right quoted therein; MORTON objects, particularly to Section 36, not in pleadings and not owned by this defendant; McCutchen received subject to motion to srike;
    p. 2289 Springs in 3 sections, do not flow off the lands except for the one in Section 25 part of the year, intention to develop springs and wells to irrigate, propose to plant 3,000 almond trees
    p. 2291 Devil's Gate, Salt Creek, T21N R7W; some small flow in August
    p. 2292 MORTON objects, Peirsol showing a co-tenancy in the appropriation being used in Section 36 which they intend to use in Section 30 [?], Morton says does it not show a right on 30; McCutchen, receive subject to strike, etc.
    p. 2300 springs drain one into Salt and others into Grindstone, but not on the surface
    p. 2305-6 MORTON moves to strike Section 9 lands of Ayer because Elk Creek claim not in the pleadings; granted as not being riparian to Elk Creek
    p. 2312 interruptions back and forth, Morton, McCutchen, etc.
    p. 2313 water runs all year in Stony
    p. 2313-20 MORTON scoffs at Ayer's plans to irrigate

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 13 pp 2321 - 2608 [ index-2321 -- ]
    Monday, 03/05/1923

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    Appearing for Defendants represented by W.E. Johnson, Esq., of Orland, Calif.

    A.M. McCoy, Esq., of Messrs. McCoy & Gans, Red Bluff, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants

    DEFENDANTS W.A. GLENN and ANNA B.GLENN

    Witnesses called:
    F. J. Read D 2577, X 2584 & 2589, RD 2590
    W. A. Glenn D 2591, X 2601, RD 2607
    Record of Title D 2558

    DEFENDANTS CHAS. M. HALL and GERTRUDE C. HALL D 2322

    Statement by Mr. McCoy
    Introducing map by Richard Gernon, County Surveyor, Exhibit 1 for Charles M. Hall and Gertrude C. Hall, "Lands of C.M. Hall", undated, and thereafter reading into the record the record of title, D2325

    Witnesses called:
    Chas. M. Hall D 2524, X 2532 & 2535, RD 2538
    James J. Hall D 2538, X 2544 & 2546
    George M. Hall D 2548, X 2551 & 2552, RD 2554, RX 2555 & 2556
    Record of Title D 2325

    p. 2321 TUESDAY 03/06/1923
    p. 2322 Mr. McCoy map "Lands of C.M. Hall" from Richard Gernon (ill with the flu), former county surveyor, Exhibit 1, thence Exhibit A, for Hall, for illustrative purposes MISSING
    p. 1324-5 McCoy & McCutchen: read the books and pages, state the description, let the reporter then go to the official records and copy the instruments in full into his transcript....
    p. 2325 patent to David Brower 12/05/1861
    p. 2326 patent to James K. Giles 12/06/1866
    p. 2328-2389 patent to Central Pacific Railroad Company Townships 13 - 25, many ranges, many sections (332,582.66 acres) T23N R4W at p. 2357 03/17/1875
    p. 2390 patent to William M. Franks 06/01/1874
    p. 2392 patent to William Robert Hall 10/10/1879
    p. 2394 deed James K. Giles to H. Bristol 12/13/1871
    p. 2396 deed James K. Giles & H.A. Bristol to Andrew L. Hall 12/21/1872
    p. 2398 deed William M. Franks to J.K. Giles 12/01/1873
    p. 2399 deed James K. Giles to A.L. Hall 01/11/1875
    p. 2402 deed William R. Hall to Andrew L. Hall 05/21/1879
    p. 2404 McCoy: Andrew L. Hall same as A.L. Hall
    p. 2404 deed Central Pacific Railroad Company to Andrew L. Hall (narrative regarding trustees on DOT for bondholders, Charles Crocker, Silas W. Sanderson, Mark Hopkins, David D. Colton, James O'B. Gunn) 02/16/1883
    p. 2408 deed A.L. Hall to Mrs. America Murdoch (his daughter) 05/19/1891
    p. 2410 deed Amanda Hall, surviving wife of A.L. Hall, deceased and W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, A.L. [S.A. ?] Hall, C.M. Hall, Lillie Hall & G.M. Hall, to Mrs. America Murdoch 01/21/1895
    p. 2415 deed Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, A.L. Hall, C.M. Hall, & G.M. Hall, to Lillie Hall (these lands are used to define the lands of Charles M. Hall) ( conveyances in both directions) 01/22/1895
    p. 2420 deed Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, C.M. Hall, A.L. Hall, & G.M. Hall, some to Charles M. and some to Gertrude C. Hall with the 2 of them making conveyances back in exchange (fixes their east boundary) 01/22/1895
    p. 2426 record of Decree of Distribution, Estate of A.L. Hall, to Lillie E. (Hall) Cameron (other portions to Mrs. America Murdoch; A.L. Hall; C.M. Hall, Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, and C.M. Hall; 12/29/1900
    p. 2433 deed Lillie E. Hall to Amanda Hall 06/13/1896
    p. 2436 deed Amanda Hall to Lillie E. Hall 12/01/1896
    p. 2438 deed Lillie E. Hall to James J. Hall 07/12/1897
    p. 2439 deed Amanda Hall to Lillie E. Hall 03/19/1900
    p. 2442 deed James J. Hall to Lillie E. Cameron 02/04/1902
    p. 2444 deed Lillie E. Cameron and Howard Camerion, her husband, to Amanda Hall 02/04/1902
    p. 2446 deed James J. Hall to Amanda Hall 02/26/1910
    p. 2448 record Decree of Distribution, Estate of Amanda Hall to W.R. Hall, Charles M. Hall, J.J. Hall, George M. Hall, America Murdoch, and Lillie Cameron 05/15/1916
    p. 2453 deed James J. Elmore to Laban Scearce and James K. Giles 03/05/1867
    p. 2454 deed J.K. Giles to A.L. Hall 01/15/1875
    p. 2456 deed W.R. Hall and Isabel Hall, his wife, J.J. Hall and Olive F. Hall, his wife, George M. Hall and Annie M. Hall, his wife, America Murdoch and R.B. Murdoch, her husband, and Lillie E. Cameron, to Charles M. Hall and Gertrude C. Hall, his wife, 12/10/1917
    p. 2462 judgment, suit to quiet title by W.R. Hall, Charles M. Hall, J.J. Hall, George M. Hall, America Murdoch, Lillie E. Cameron vs. Rose Gupton, Elizabeth O'Brien, Bertha Connelly, Rose Wells, Hattie Joe Bert, Helen Refeeta, William Gupton, Hugh Gupton, James Gupton, Mary Doe Brown, James K. Giles, J.K. Giles, David Brower, H.A. Bristol, H. Bristol, Marshall B. Bryan, M.N. Bryan, anyone else claiming title or cloud 02/02/1918
    p. 2469 deed J.J. Hall and Olive F. Hall, his wife, George M. Hall and Annie M. Hall, his wife, America Hazlett, formerly America Murdoch, Lillie E. Voll, formerly Lillie E. Cameron, Isabel Hall, widow of W.R. Hall, deceased, Isabel Cunningham, formerly Isabel Hall & Ruth Hall, to Charles M. Hall and Gertrude C. Hall, his wife, all water and water rights, relates to Stony Creek Irrigation Company contracts, etc., no objection from Morton, Rankin objects insofar as it may attempt to quitclaim rights of America Murdoch previously conveyed to predecessors in interest of W.A. Glenn & wife, McCutchen receives subject to renewal of objection at any appropriate time 05/01/1922
    p. 2477 patent to Hiram Treble Elmore and James Jefferson Elmore 03/10/1863 [certificate # not listed, apparently only with BROWNELL & later ]
    p. 2479 Military patent to Andrew J. Hargue 09/05/1861
    p. 2479 deed Andrew J. Hargue to William H. Elmore 06/14/1859
    p. 2482 deed Andrew J. Hargue to Hiram T. Elmore 10/31/1859
    p. 2484 deed Hiram T. Elmore to James J. Elmore 10/31/1859
    p. 2486 deed Albert G. Davis, administrator, and Nancy E. Davis, adminstratrix of the estate of W.H. Elmore, deceased to James J. Elmore and H.T. Elmore 11/23/1861
    p. 2491 Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Company, a corporation, and Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall and C.M. Hall 05/09/1904
    p. 2501 modification of that agreement as to place of delivery, The Stoney Creek Irrigation Company, a Corporation, and Mrs. Amanda Hall, W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, and C.M. Hall 03/23/1905
    p. 2508 deed W.R. Hall, J.J. Hall, C.M. Hall, America Murdoch, Lillie E. Cameron, and G.M. Hall to the Orland Unit Water Users Association, 1) 80-foot right of way centered on the High Line Canal? totaling .7 acres 2) an acre between #1 and the Reclamation right of way, reserving private road easement; 3) and 25' wide strip along the SCIC land acquired by Reclamation totalling 1 acre; 4) 1.1 acres along the SCIC/Reclamation right of way 11/29/1915
    p. 2513 deed Orland Unit Water Users Association to USA, passing on the property at p. 2508 01/04/1916
    p. 2548 deed Stony Creek Irrigation Company to USA, 05/21/1909
    p. 2522-24 McCoy wishing to add to his answer 2 strips: 1) 10 acres between the ditches, 2) strip of land running from the canal west 2.85 chains (188.1 feet) wide; McCutchen, does not believe he has authority to allow amendments, evidence received, may perhaps secure leave from the Court or by stipulation to conform to proof
    p. 2558 Military patent to John Squires 12/05/1851
    p. 2560 deed John Squires to James K. Giles 08/08/1860
    p. 2563 deed America Murdoch & Robert B. Murdoch her husband to California Title Insurance & Trust Company 01/02/1907
    p. 2567 quit-claim America Murdoch and R.B. Murdoch, her husband to California Title Insurance and Trust Company 09/14/1909
    p. 2569-71 back and forth between McCoy & Rankin about the 10-acre strip between ditches or strip 2.85 chains wide
    p. 2571 deed California Title Insurance and Trust Company to W.A. Glenn and Anna B. Glenn his wife 09/16/1909
    p. 2576 instrument attached to Glenn Answer as Exhibit "C" (b5 18/39) tr. 2662 05/21/1909
    p. 2580-2581 line missing?
    pp. 2577 - , 4-cornered argument, McCoy, Rankin, Morton, & McCutchen; America Hall Murdoch land (later W.A. Glenn) cheated out of its Hall irrigation entitlement,
    p. 2596 Reclamation locked off W.A. Glenn's ditch, 1913?
    p. 2596-7 McCoy objects to Glenn's conversation with Burch (Reclamation) as incompetent, McCutchen overrules
    p. 2597 Glenn spoke with his lawyer, John J. Wells, Burch told Glenn to talk to Hall about his right, Wells said he didn't have to
    p. 2599 Glenn depending on Angle suit to settle his right to Hall & Scearce water
    p. 2600-1 Glenn worked on Hall & Scearce ditch at request of Mr. Hall
    p. 2602--8 Glenn surprises everyone by describing 3 ditches? culminating in Glenn Exhibit A, for illustration only

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 14 pp 2609 - 2712 [ index-2609 -- ]
    Wednesday, 03/07/1923

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    Appearing for Defendants represented by W.E. Johnson, Esq., of Orland, Calif.

    A.M. McCoy, Esq., of Messrs. McCoy & Gans, Red Bluff, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants

    DEFENDANTS W.A. GLENN and ANNA B. GLENN

    Witnesses called:
    W.A. Glenn X 2609 & 2624, RD 2627
    Wm. Palmer Gay D 2628, X 2634

    DEFENDANTS CHAS. M. HALL and GERTRUDE C. HALL

    Witnesses called:
    Chas. M. Hall D 2637, X 2638
    Statement by Mr. McCoy D 2639-2643, & Mr. Rankin,
    Back and forth on the issue of whether or not the Halls have the exclusive right to the 125 & 75 inches, or whether the Glenns & America Murdoch have some right to it.

    DEFENDANT FRANK M. KIRKPATRICK

    Witnesses called:
    Frank M. Kirkpatrick D 2673, X 2682, R 2701
    Edward Kirkpatrick 2702, X 2709, R 2711

    DEFENDANTS W.E. SCEARCE, MARY J. SCEARCE, and OLIVE SCEARCE PARSONS

    Witnesses called:
    W,E. Scearce D 2644 & 2672, X 2647
    Record of Title D 2648

    p. 2609 WEDNESDAY, 03/07/1923
    p. 2609-14 Glenn's Exhibit A, continued
    p. 2615 Reclamation shut the water off to Glenn's renter, G.W. Harris 1912
    p. 2619 Burch shut off Glenn's water 1912, Glenn
    p. 2620-3 Hall asked Glenn to clean out the ditch; 3 men and teams, then 2 & teams, 1919; & most every year
    p. 2623 Mr. Dean on Scearce ranch came and got Glenn and they went above Hall's house with a team & plow, Mr. Johnson the ditchrider came down and told them the ditch was broken through and they had to fix it 1922
    p. 2624 McCoy asks if Scearce people wanted ditch cleaned for stock water because the Reclamation canal was empty
    p. 2624 Morton leading, Rankin objects
    p. 2625-7 Burch wouldn't turn it back on until Glenn & Hall settled it, so Glenn couldn't plant his alfalfa; Hall allowed him enough for his garden and stock, but no more? Glenn paid the help that worked on the Hall & Scearce ditch [by what right did Burch shut off a vested water rights owner? Shouldn't his only concern be making sure the total delivery did not exceed the 125 or 75 miner's inches?]
    p. 2629 Mr. Gay, evened out the first 2100 feet of the Hall & Scearce ditch
    p. 2630 Mr. Gay, float method, 13 cfs: measured across the bottom of the ditch, formed as near a square as he could, threw a chunk in, timed it for a hundred feet, estimated accordingly; the method generally used at the time
    p. 2631 Hall & Scearce irrigation waste irrigated Graves, and Kirkpatrick
    p. 2632 Problems with supplying the Murdoch ditch from Hall & Scearce ditch? took it from SCIC "because they couldn't get it out at Towle crossing without pumping the water up so high it went back into Stony Creek; it overflowed their dam up there--they didn't have the fall." [huh?]
    p. 2635 Black Butte school house
    p. 2637 Hall says Glenn helped on the ditch with a team and one or two men one day, and alone some various other days, but was never asked to; hogs had ripped out the ditch, tules grew up in it, wanted to get water down to both their houses
    p. 2639 McCutchen asks McCoy about his position on the controversy between Hall & Glenn; McCoy pp. 2639 - 2642, 1904 & 1905 agreements exclusively the property of Charles M. Hall and Getrude C. Hall, and Charles Hall's sister America Murdoch and her lands had nothing to do with it - only Amanda Hall and her sons were parties, not her daughter? Later documents, p. 2641-2 merely corrections, but still in favor of C.M. & G.C. Hall?
    p. 2642-3 Mr. Rankin responds: America Hall Murdoch irrigated orchard and alfalfa from the Hall ditch, and she had as much right in the ditch as C.M. and G.C. regardless of the SCIC agreement, still considering their position with an eye towards amending if they decide to do so.
    p. record of Agreement, Stony Creek Irrigation Company, a corporation, and Mary J. Scearce, W.E. Scearce, Olive Scearce, Alice Scearce and Mabel Scearce, 05/16/1904
    p. 2655 deed Mabel Scearce Scribner and Alice Scearce Fouch to Mary J. Scearce, W.E. Scearce and Olive Scearce Parsons 10/21/1914
    p. 2662 not introduced by Rankin: deed Stony Creek Irrigation Company, a corporation, and the United States of America 05/21/1909
    p. 2666 deed Mary J. Scearce, W.E. Scearce and Olive Scearce Parsons to Laban Scearce Company, a corporation 11/05/1914
    p. 2668 deed Laban Scearce Company, a corporation to W.E. Scearce and Olive Scearce Parsons 02/14/1919
    p. 2672 map Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 MISSING
    p. 2675 "I seen the water go through there to swim a horse." [?]
    p. p. 2675-7 Kirkpatrick irrigated from a slough, which came out of the Hall & Scearce ditch; Reclamation cut it off, so no more water; Slough into Hambright Creek? SCIC turned out into the slough, Kirkpatrick dammed the slough and diverted by ditches
    p. 2677 3000 prune trees, 40 acres, irrigated 20 of them 1891 on, rest of them didn't need it because of the soils
    p. 2678 1917? Burch shut down the gates, cut off his water
    p. 2679 Kirkpatrick helped build the dams, got right of way from Scearce, sued Graves when he objected (Glenn County?, '92, '93) and Graves settled so had right of way from him, recorded,
    p. 2680 Johnson the ditch rider turned water out to the slough until Angle subpoena served, then no more
    p. 2681 Kirkpatrick's father & Murdoch & Graves & C.B. Ashurst (his uncle) built the SCIC canal
    p. 2685, 2682 - 2701 Morton badgering Kirkpatrick about his memory for dates, acreage, numbers of trees, etc.
    p. 2688 land near the creek thin and needed irrigating; land near the slough watered sub-surface from the slough
    p. 2690 Kirkpatrick's father & Graves put in the turnout from the SCIC ditch, for them not for Scearce
    p. 2693 added 1100 peach trees
    p. 2696 Rankin gets tired of it and objects, asked & answsered multiple times; Morton continues with more of the same
    p. 2699 lost half his orchard when the Project shut down the slough turnout
    p. 2700-01 Kirkpatrick put in a well after the water lost; pumps from underflow for garden
    p. 2701 Rankin asks about his memory, Kirkpatrick was hit by an iron, 75-pound iron fell 18 feet, scar on his head, sometimes can't remember anything, can't remember Rankin's name, name of that man there (Morton?), neighbors' names, "would like to have knocked his brains out"
    p. 2702 father Thomas Jefferson Kirkpatrick, brother Edward Kirkpatrick
    p. 2705 Edward worked on building the SCIC canal
    p. 2707 Project canal intercepted the slough so thereafter no runoff from the buttes went into it in the spring or rainy season; Project changed waste from Hall & Scearce ditch to run down Hambright Creek instead of the slough
    p. 2708 because of the cutoff of the supply or drainage, sub-irrigation lost, the trees dry out, don't do well, fruit isn't so good.
    p. 2710 OUWUA told Frank he wasn't entitled to any water and they wouldn't restore it
    p. 2711 water in that slough for 50 years until OUWUA cut it off

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 15 pp 2713 - 2899 [index-2717 -- ]
    Tuesday, 05/01/1923
    Wednesday, 05/02/1923

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

    H.T. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
    Appearing for Defendants Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

    DEFENDANT GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT

    Statement by Mr. Hankins D 2713
    History of GCID and more specifically citing the histories in Beckwith v. Sheldon, 154 Cal. 393, Byington v. Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company 170 Cal 124, and Rogers v. Sacramento Valley West Side Canal company 7 Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission 120, to which Mr. Morton objected, ruling withheld until ???.

    Witnesses Ca1led
    Raymond Matthew D 2717, X 2723, RD 2737, RX 2739
    " Recalled D 2786, X 2791
    James T. McPherson D 2740, X 2762
    Charles L. Donohoe D 2773, X 2778, RD 2781
    Charles F, Lambert D 2781, X 2785

    Record of Title D 2793

    p. 2713 TUESDAY, 05/01/1923
    p. 2713 Statement of Mr. Hankins as noted above --
    p. 2723 Kuhn California Project Map, Exhibit A
    p. 2731 cut off the underflow and divert it
    p. 2736 5% waste
    p. 2742 compilation by McPherson, "Water Diverted from Stony Creek from 1910 to 1918 as per reports of H.F. Cauthard, Superintendent, Operation and Maintenance, Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, from #10 to #15 inclusive and Reports of E.C. Mills, Chief Engineer or Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, from 1916 to 1918 inclusive", offered as Exhibit B MISSING - different GCID Exhibit B in file, chit chat with Morton & Rankin preempted acceptance?
    p. 2747 Morton objecting to the assumptions in the data? gap in text, 2747 to 2748?
    p. 2748 1916 SVIC pulled trees, blew out stumps in bottom of canal that held the canal high; 1917 donkey engine in the canal pulling trees, used suction dredge from intake channel into the canal to lower the grade at the bottom of the canal; GCID as far as Mills Orchard in 1920, all water from Stony because it furnished more than they could up until 06/01 ?
    p. 2749 06/24 using all water from Stony, start pumping next week
    p. 2747 1910 from Stony 6,500 a-f (total, less pumping)
    p. 2749 1911 9,331 a-f
    p. 2751 1912 no record?
    p. 2751 1913 zero? very dry year
    p. 2752 1914 no record?
    p. 2752 1915 16,576 a-f
    p. 2754 1916 6,760 a-Stony
    p. 2756 1917 20,315 a-f
    p. 2758 Morton, moves that anything about turning water down the River Branch Canl be stricken as irrelevant, McCutchen reserves ruling
    pp. 2758-60 daily readings of Stony diversions in 1917
    p. 2761-2 moving from bents to gravel dam, 75 bents in 1916 deteriorating, used 75 and built the rest of the dam with flood gravel; 1917 45 bents, balance with drag-line & donkey engine and a Bagley bucket to clean out the Creek channel which they couldn't get down to grade with stock [multiple references to stock in these pages - livestock? horses?], & wanted a heavier dam;1918 15-16 bents, just a spillway near the south bank.
    p. 2765 Morton asks about the River Branch Canal
    p. 2766 definition of "bents": front board, batter, knew braces (knee?), floor, sheet piling, pockets, [probably have to see it?]
    p. 2770, 07/1913 financial failure of SVIC
    p. 2774-5 attorney Charles L. Donohoe, Willows on history of companies before GCID: Central Canal and Irrigation Company, took over lease of old Central Irrigation Canal Company & properties, appropriation posted early 1903, & at Stony Creek crossing; 1903-5, finished excavation of old central Canal to 5 miles n/e of Willows & built River Branch Canal to a mile & a half south of Princeton; first Stony diversions 1905, first river 07/04/1907, first down main canal beyond River Branch spring 1908;
    p. 2776 1905 3200 acres irrigated from Stony, 1906 4200, 1907 more
    p. 2776-7 Donohoe their attorney until '06 Quake/Fire, then took charge of system as Manager to 03/01/1908, attorney until they sold out to Kuhns in 1909
    p. 2777 after rice started, growth of system rapid; Kuhn folks attempted to develop grapes, wheat & barley unsuccessfully & 4-5000 acres went out of irrigation (until rice?)
    p. 2777-2778 assisted in the CCIC & Reclamation agreement.
    pp. 2778-9 CCIC subsidiary Sacramento Land Company purchased several thousand acres of Glenn Ranch, 11000 acre Boggs Ranch, 6000 acre Packer Ranch; River Branch built to irrigate those & subdivide & selling them to small owners: alfalfa, corn, trees,
    p. 2779 Glenn-Cordora ID 1916 took over most of the River Branch, went to their own pumps on the river lower down and their own canal
    p. 2779-80 Central Canal, 1891, canal to within 2 or 300 yards of the river & sat for a decade because of litigation; CCIC took over early 1903 leasing the whole system, did measurements & extended to the river
    p. 2783 Quint Canal served the Rogers Ranch, built spring 1908
    p. 2783 lower portion of sheet piling still in place to support the gravel dam
    p. 2784 Charles F. Lambert: 1) reconstruction of River headgates; 2) installation of new pumping units; 3) deepening and lowering of the main canal from the headgates to a point above Willows; 4) reconstruction of headgates at Stony Creek; 5) increasing canal capacity from 1300 to 1550 second feet; 1920-22

    p. 2786 WEDNESDAY, 05/02/1923
    p. 2788 1919-20 initial work by the District after taking over facilities; very dry year, weir left intact (not washed out), Creek & River very low, started diverting into canal in February for dredge flotation
    p. 2789 Creek closed 04/07/1921 250 cfs diverted, total estimated [?] 7,500 - 10,000 af, river pumps started 04/22/1921
    p. 2790 Creek turned into Canal 04/04/1922, river turned in 04/21/1922, pumps turned on several days later, estimated Creek diversion 10,000 af; advantage of Creek water 1) cheaper 2) closer to application so less loss; rice 6-7 af, other crops 3 af; 1922 rice 34,463 acres, other 5,069 acres
    p. 2792 transmission losses 18-20%, waste at canal end up to 5%, total 23-25%; entire main canal and practically all laterals unlined, though pretty tight, "soil conditions along main canal and laterals mainly relative non-porous soil." [that is inconsistent with soil conditions in the Stony Creek Fan in general]
    p. 2793 GCID Exhibit B, Notice of Water Location by M.N. Sheldon [sic] 04/11/1903, 5,000 cfs Stoney [sic] Creek
    p. 2797 GCID Exhibit C, Assignment of Notice of Water Location M.N. Sheldon and Mabel N. Sheldon, his wife, to Central Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation, 12/14/1903
    p. 2799 GCID Exhibit D, Notice of Appropriation of Water by Central Canal and Irrigation Company 12/14/1903 5,000 cfs Stoney Creek
    p. 2802 GCID Exhibit E, Notice of Water Location by Central Irrigation District 04/26/1905 5,000 cfs Stoney Creek
    p. 2804 GCID Exhibit F, Lease all property and rights of Central Irrigation District to Willard M. Sheldon (incorporating a copy of the published notice "Proposals for Leasing, Office of the Board of Directors of Central Irrigation District, Maxwell, Cal., December 10, 1902" wherein they put it out to bid?) 01/06/1903
    p. 2820 GCID Exhibit G, Assignment of lease, Willard M. Sheldon to Central Canal and Irrigation Company 06/17/1904 "original assignment is referred to and established in the case of Byington vs. the Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company" and was lost from the court record
    p. 2822 GCID Exhibit H, deed Sacramento Valley Land Corporation and Central Canal and Irrigation Company to L.D. Waddell, ditch system & water rights 09/20/1909
    p. 2829 GCID Exhibit I, deed L.D. Waddell to Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company, reconvey what's in Exhibit H 09/22/1909
    p. 2834 GCID Exhibit J, deed Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company to Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company, reconvey what's in Exhibit H and I 06/16/1910
    p. 2839 GCID Exhibit K, Assignment of Lease, (the Central Irrigation District lease) by Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Company to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and the Jacinto Irrigatin District 09/29/1921
    p. 2847 GCID Exhibit L, deed Superior California Farm Lands Company quitclaim to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 09/30/1921
    p. 2847 GCID Exhibit M, deed Thomas J. Franklin, as Special master, Equitable Trust Company of New York and Joseph N. Babcock, as Trusttes, and Merle B. Moon, to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and Jacinto Irrigation District 07/11/1921; Morton, objects as attempting to show a distribution of water rights to Jacinto Irrigation District, overruled, formal exception
    p. 2865 GCID Exhibit N, deed Thomas J. Franklin, as Special master, Equitable Trust Company of New York and Joseph N. Babcock, as Trusttes, and Merle B. Moon, to William Durbrow, Ernest Eibe, and Gion W. Gibson, as Directors of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 07/11/1921; Hankins: laterals, drains & ditches, but not the main canal; main canal directly to the District, but all the rest of this to "Directors as Trustees for the benefit of the lands in the District"; Exhibit A at pp. 2875-6 is a legible photograph of the laterals, drains & ditches schedule
    p. 2878 GCID Exhibit O, deed Thomas J. Franklin, as Special master, Equitable Trust Company of New York and Joseph N. Babcock, as Trusttes, and Merle B. Moon, to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 07/11/1921; Hankins: the main canal system; Exhibit A at p. 2888 is legible photograph of main canal schedule; Exhibit B a typewritten list of equipment
    p. 2891 GCID Exhibit P, Order of organization of GCID by Supervisors of Glenn County, the charter or right of the District to exist. (P is MISSING, different from Exhibit T which is the "final order" p. 2902-3 ? )
    p. 2891 GCID Exhibit Q, agreement Central Canal and Irrigation Company and USA, 09/24/1907 (different Q? same as Exhibit "Z"?)
    p. 2898 more GCID exhibits, next hearing; will ask leave to file amended answer to show rights in the Jacinto Irrigation District as well, obtained by them subsequent to the filing of the answer from the predecessor of GCID
    p. 2899 McCutchen: no ruling, get leave from the Court

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 16 pp 2900 - 3106
    [pp. 2939-2958 MISSING?]
    Friday, 07/20/1923
    Monday, 07/23/1923
    Tuesday, 09/04/1923
    Wednesday, 09/05/1923
    Thursday, 09/06/1923
    Tuesday, 09/11/1923

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

    H.T. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.

    3091 Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    3091 Warren Gregory, Esq., of Messrs. Chickering & Gregory, San Francisco, Calif. For their respective Defendants

    DEFENDANT GLENN-COLUSA IRR. DST.

    Additional Record of Title D 2900

    DEFENDANTS ESPERANZA LAND CORP.

    Statement by Warren Gregory, Esq. D 3091
    Chickering & Gregory associated with Frank Freeman as counsel for James Mills Orchards Corporation and Esperanza Land Corporation. (following a sidebar) asked for 2 weeks to receive and review first 15 volumes of Testimony and then decide whether to present more evidence, Master to determine a date later.

    Witnesses called:
    John P. Ryan D 2906 & 3066 & 3072 & 3079, X 2908 & 3070 & 3076 & 3085

    DEFENDANT JAMES MILLS ORCHARD CORP.

    Witnesses called:
    John P. Ryan D 2906 & 3042 & 3066 & 3072 & 3079, X 2908 & 3070 & 3076 & 3085

    Statement by Warren Gregory, Esq. D 3091
    (see under Esperanza Land, above)

    DEFENDANT LUCY KIMEL

    Record of Title D 2935

    DEFENDANT HENRY CHASTAIN

    Record of Title D 2935

    DEFENDANT L. HOFFMASTER

    Record of Title D 2936

    DEFENDANT J.E. AYER

    Record of Title D 2937

    DEFENDANT J.W. EDWARDS

    Witnesses called:
    J.W. Edwards D 2960, X 2965, RD 2972, RX 2973

    DEFENDANTS BROWNELL

    Witnesses called:
    L.E. BROWNELL D 2975, X 2978, RD 2981, RX 2982
    I.L. BROWNELL D 2983, X 2984
    G.S. Stockton D 2989, X 2991, RD 2992
    R.H. BROWNELL D 2992, X 2994
    W.P. Gay D 3101, X 3105, RD 3105

    DEFENDANT SACRAMENTO VALLEY SUGAR CO.

    Witnesses called:
    John P. Ryan D 2996, X 3013, RD 3017, RX 3020

    DEFENDANTS J.F. MALLON & R.E. BLEVINS

    Witnesses called:
    J.F. Mallon D 3022, X 3027
    A.F. Moore D 3093, X 3098, RD 3099, RX 3100
    W.P. Gay D 3101, X 3105, RD 3105

    DEFENDANTS ADMR. OF ESTATE OF ROBERT STEWART, Deceased, To be substituted for
    JAMES W. SAWYER

    Witnesses called:
    Frank W. Troxel D 3034, R 3037

    DEFENDANTS C.M. HALL AND GERTRUDE C. HALL

    Witnesses called:
    Richard Gernon D 3050, X 3060

    FRIDAY, 07/20/1923
    p. 2901 Exhibit Q [a second exhibit Q] Decree of Foreclosure, "In the District Court of the United States, Northern District of California, Second Division, The Equitable Trust Company of New York and Joseph N. Babcock, Plaintiffs, vs. Sacramento Valley Irrigation District, Sacramento West Side Canal Company, et al., Defendants" 12/06/1915 /s/ William C. Van Fleet, District Judge,
    p. 2901 Exhibit R, Order amending Decree, sale of remaining portions of canal and irrigation system /s/ William H. Hunt, District Judge 01/03/1921
    p. 2902 Exhibit S, Order Confirming Sale By Special Master, to GCID /s/ William C. Van Fleet, District Judge, 07/11/1921
    p. 2902 GCID Exhibit T, final order of organization of GCID by Supervisors of Glenn County, 03/01/1920, contrast p. 2891
    p. 2903 Morton objects, sort of, to the extent that any of the GCID exhibits might contain any "recitals as to areas irrigated, continuous use of water, and other facts", as incompetent and possibly irrelevant; McCutchen: instruments offered for the sole purpose of proving chain of title and received for that purpose
    p. 2904-5 Hankins: will subsequently introduce the "Master's Report" which details all the properties included

    p. 2905 Examination of John P. Ryan, agent for and witness for Mills Orchards and Esperanza Land conducted without counsel present. [2905-2938, and link includes later Mills testimony except vol. 26 ] --
    pp. 2906-2919 Pumping from Underflow

    p. 2935 Lucy Kimel Exhibit A [? blank slot on tr., A in b4 36/39] deed J.A. Sale & Mary P. Sale, his wife, to J. Van Syeth [Scyoc?] 12/03/1905
    p. 2935 Henry Chastain Exhibit C deed Emma T. Witcher to Henry Chastain 01/09/1920
    p. 2936 L. Hoffmaster Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, MISSING?; deed George W. Wood to Leonard Hoffmaster 12/11/1916, deed A.J. Harlan to Leonard Hoffmaster 06/07/1913, deed J.D. McNary, Administrator of Estate of Henry L. Mosier, 12/23/1912

    p. 2937 MONDAY, 07/23/1923 [Ayer record of title, see Vol. 21]

    p. 2960 TUESDAY, 09/04/1923
    pp. 2959-3106 --
    p. 2962 Seepage, from irrigated, waters the unirrigated
    p. 2964 J.W. Edwards vinyard sub-irrigates from alfalfa field
    p. 2966 J.W. Edwards' lawyer, Mr. George Parks, on why his water right was not recorded "That is too bad; it must have gotten misplaced some way."
    p. 2970 Morton: usual objection against anything even thinking of being riparian
    p. 2973 seepage subirrigates & returns to the creek
    p. 2981 BROWNELLs, 14,000 acres, 3,000 irrigable
    p. 2982 Bert Cole survey for the Orland Project formation?
    p. 2984 BROWNELLs, "it would produce anything that the Orland Project would produce.";
    p. 2984 & 2994 home place Section 23 T22N R5W
    p. 2986 Stopped irrigation because of lack of competent help; Morton argues that it was actually because they ran range, not farm; BROWNELL responds that his health went;
    p. 2986-8 1922 surveyed another ditch, much higher than the original, partly constructed, for the "Big Flat", 250-300 acres, ditcher, ready "for the scrapers to true it up", intended to pump from the creek 1-1/2 miles up, surveyed by an Orland surveyor;
    p. 2988 another 60 acres above that ready to irrigate but was advised not to
    p. 2990 Morton objects, immaterial & irrelevant, to any testimony regarding irrigation of BROWNELL lands in 1903 & 04 and abandonment in 1904, by Mr. Stockton; as to whether it is appropriation or riparian? Freeman: goes in anyway, one way or another. McCutchen: then no need for a ruling.
    pp. 2992-3 alfalfa, orchard, China garden, potato patch, barley field; 1870s off and on to 1904 or so
    p. 2994-5 stopped irrigation: incompetence of labor, creek shifted its channel, and shortage of money

    p. 2996 WEDNESDAY, 09/05/1923, back to John P. Ryan for Sacramento Valley Sugar Company
    p. 2998-3000, 3011-3020 pumping from Stony Creek underflow

    p. 3024 Markham, Exhibit A, Eriksen map #15, MISSING
    p. 3027,31 Mallon, Exhibit A, map MISSING
    p. 3035 Bristol Creek [Briscoe?]
    p. 3040 did not use all the ditch, let the excess back into the creek
    p. 3042 John P. Ryan on behalf of James Mills Orchards Corporation again
    p. 3043-3049 All of water for James Mills Orchards Corporation pumped from undeflow
    p. 3049 Morton objects to assumptions of underground streams; chemistry of undergrown flow matches Stony Creek, not rainfall or Sacramento River

    p. 3050 THURSDAY, 06/06/1923
    p. 3050-1 Richard Gernon, State-licensed Land Surveyor/Civil Engineer, 40 years, lapsed United States Deputy Surveyor, one-time two-term Tehama County Surveyor; Red Bluff
    p. 3053 1890 Gernon surveyed for SCIC ditch through Towle's; Hall & Scearce intersected & conveyed over the SCIC ditch
    p. 3054 Creek changed course, swung to the south & took out both intakes and a low piece of bottom land 1890-1900
    p. 3054 Hall Exhibit B Gernon map in Archives even though for illustration only
    p. 3055 Gernon measured Hall & Scearce ditch for a box flume over SCIC ditch 1890
    p. 3056 Hall Exhibit A Gernon 1922 map for Identification MISSING
    p. 3062 action brought in Court to condemn land for SCIC ditch, compromised before the case came up, with Towle, Hall & Scearce; action delayed construction, "required a good deal of careful surveying to locate the ditch, so that it would stand a condemnation suit."
    p. 3064-5 Billy Gay, working on F.C. Graves' son's north side ditch, into High Creek for the Hardon Ranch, later Lemon Home ditch, colony of Swedes blocked its completion

    p. 3066 John P. Ryan again, James Mills Orchard & Esperanza Land
    p. 3066-3069 James Mills Orchard Co. map Exhibit A,, Master sustain Morton's objection as to depths of the wells, etc.; objection to assertion lands are riparian; Freeman "...lands that are now being watered from these wells are a contiguous proposition, so far as the ownership is concerned." [as in riparian to the underflow]
    p. 3070 Mr. Freeman endorsing Mr. Ryan's 07/20 appearance without counsel
    pp. 3072-3076 James Mills Orchard Exhibit B showing rise & fall of well levels with rise and fall of Stony Creek - Morton objects to the competence of the record as not being best evidence, overruled [a first?]
    p. 3077-3078 more efforts by Morton to argue rainfall rather than underflow
    p. 3079-3089 recites drilling logs for a number of the wells on Mills & Esperanza, no artesian strata, back and forth with Morton working on strata vs. channels

    p. 3091 TUESDAY 09/11/1923
    p. 3091-3092 Warren Gregory of Chickering and Gregory, San Francisco, shows up to associate with Frank Freeman for Esperanza Land and James Mills Orchards Co., asks to continue the case for these defendants to a date to be determined, granted.
    p. 3093-3096 A.F. Moore, says for Mallon & Blevins, but speaking for BROWNELLs, shifting channels, disappearing & reappearing flows, Miller Buttes it came up because of a "clay formation there from one butte to the other and the water had to come to the surface there to get by."
    p. 3094 The White House, near BROWNELL
    p. 3100 irrigation near Julian Rocks, northwest of the proposed dam site, 15-20 acres, Chinese Gardens, Chinese people; Indian boy killed up there, Freeman remembers the case
    p. 3101-4 William Palmer "Billy" Gay worked on every ditch near the Buttes: BROWNELLs' & Graves' (& Ashur, or Ashurst) & Hall's & some on the Miller Ranch; Graves China Garden Ditch, north side, enlarged to become Lemon Home; stockholder in SCIC?
    p. 3105 North of W.R. Graves present home, a place where Stony ran year-round?; all the way to the river, sometimes on the surface, sometimes not
    p. 3106 adjourn to 10/02 ?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 17 pp 3107 - 3240 [ entire -- ]
    Thursday, 12/13/1923
    Friday, 12/14/1923
    Saturday, 12/15/1923

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

    H.T. Hankins, Esq., of Messrs Hankins & Hankins, San Francisco
    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    Duard F. Geis, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    For their respective Defendants.

    FOR THE UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    S.T. Harding D 3108, 3129, 3142, 3149, 3152, 3158, 3175
    X 3126, 3139, 3145, 3151, 3156, 3166
    RD 3127, 3149, 3151, 3170, 3174, 3174
    RX 3171, 3174, 3175

    DEFENDANT GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

    Statement by Mr. Hankins D 3178
    Asks for leave to withdraw Exhibit S and replace with a certified copy, granted

    FOR THE UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    S.T. Harding (Recalled) D 3180, 3186, 3188, 3191, 3193, 3206, 3208
    X 3184, 3188, 3190, 3193, 3197, 3205, 3215
    RD 3186, 3204
    A.N. Burch (Recalled) D 3217
    E.T. Eriksen (Recalled) D 3231

    p. 3107 THURSDAY, 12/13/1923

    [ pp. 3107-3128 HARDING, SETS UP PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ], retranscribed
    p. 3107 instead of plan to supplement plaintiff's "proof in chief with some odds and ends" & "water requirements for the Orland Project", will present Mr. Harding on proof in chief and rebuttal on defendants' water requirements --
    p. 3109-12 Mr. Harding recites his resume, including work on Orr Ditch case
    p. 3112 reviewed lands irrigated from upstream diversions, and on the project
    p. 3113 reviewed project records "more than usually complete", official government records
    p. 3115 Project: 3,000 acres of coarse gravel soil, 7,000 acres of gravelly loam, 2,500 acres of clay, 3,500 acres of black loam, 3,500 acres of sandy loam, total 20,500 acres [missing 1,000?]; clay not all as heavy a texture as would be the clays found in many areas; see also USDA Colusa Survey
    p. 3116 scaling off the Colusa Survey: 4700 acres Sacramento loam, 4200 acres Sacramento gravel clay loam, 200 acres of Sacramento silt loam, 8700 acres of San Joaquin loam, 400 acres of San Joaquin fine loam, 9200 acres of Orland gravel loam, 250 acres of Orland fine sand, and 250 acres of Orland sandy loam [total 27,900 acres? pertaining to what?]; reviewed irrigation practices for samples of farms on each type of soil
    p. 3117 Season varies, March - October, and occasionally in November
    p. 3119-20 projecting 50% forage, 20% summer crops, 870 a-f, 30% orchards, estimate season requirement of 60,150 a-f; 60% forage increases to 62,870 a-f; estimates vary from 5 a-f/acre on alfalfa on coarse gravel soil to 1.3 a-f/acre for orchards on black loam; but, using USDA classifications from their soils maps, 57,500 a-f and 59,900 a-f respectively; for existing water use plus an estimate of soils in the 4 geographic project divisions [?] it becomes 55,100 a-f/acre and 57,600 a-f/acre respectively;
    p. 3122-3 Project conveyance (seepage and evaporation) 25-26%
    p. 3123 regulation waste [included or in addition to?], 20% March, 10% April, 5% May, 3% June, zero July/August/September, 5% October;
    p. 3123-4 diversion percent of annual total, 1% March, 9% April, 16% May, 19% June, 20% July, 18% August, 13% September, 4% October
    p. 3124 A Project average of 60,000 a-f, and applying a conveyance loss of 25% for all months and regulation waste for each month, requires diversion of 83,000 a-f at the canal headgates; [THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE 4.05 a-f/acre: he is using gross acreage of 20,500 acres, p. 3115 & 3125; 60,000 a-f p. 3124 & 3121, with 25% conveyance = 83,000, but that's more than 25%; even so, 83000/20500 = 4.0487 a-f/acre, or 4.05 rounded] No consideration for 1) transmission losses above the headgates; 2) storage of water
    p. 3125 maximum month of June, requires 266 second-feet at headgates for the 20,500 acre Project
    p. 3126 "conveyance conditions on the Orland Project are more than average unfavorable, that is, there is a more than average amount of coarser soils."; Morton: 148 miles in the Project
    p. 3127 by 1923 over a third of the canals concreted; this lining effort is outside a standard of "ordinary practice now in use in the Sacramento Valley."
    p. 3127-8 average distance water travels in the canals, diversion to delivery, is 10 - 12 miles; average conveyance loss 2 - 2-12 % per mile, losses proportionately larger in smaller canals than larger ones; Project canal system relatively compact, 140 acres of irrigable land per mile of canal

    p. 3129 AFTERNOON SESSION - THURSDAY, 12/13/1923 1:15 p.m.
    p. 3129 "S.T. Harding recalled as a witness in behalf of the United States" DIRECT EXAMINATION,

    p. 3129-30 [HARDING, INVESTIGATION OF UPPER WATERSHED LANDS] "MR. MORTON: Q. I believe you testified this morning, Mr. Harding, that you also made a pretty comprehensive investigation of the water requirements in the so-called upper river or upper watershed, that is, for the lands that are irrigated from Stony Creek and its tributaries above the Orland Project?
    - A. Yes, I went over those in September of 1919. I think I examined the soil on practically every field that was irrigated, with the exception of a few scattered areas on certain tributaries which were difficult of access and made borings for examinations of the soil and the sub-soil and secured such records as were available on the diversions and made a fairly complete examination of all those lands for the purpose of reaching a conclusion as to their reasonable water requirements.
    - Q. You might go a little further, Mr. Harding, and outline the things that led up to your results. [p. 3130]
    - A. I took the results of my own field observations, such data as I could obtain in the way of discussions with those there or others as to the frequency of irrigation required, observations as to the ditches, length and character of material through which they passed, as would affect their conveancy loss, the nature of the ground water on some of the lower lying lands, that is, lands adjacent to the stream. The ground water is sufficiently close to the surface of the lands to affect their water requirements and have taken into account all of those physical factors in reaching my conclusions as to the reasonable water requirements of those areas
    - Q. You also had some official data, collected on the project in past years, Mr. Harding, in that regard?
    - A. I did; I was supplied with the maps which had been made of these irrigable areas.
    - Q. Those are the [Eriksen] maps that are in this suit, are they not?
    - A. I understand so. And also the records obtained by Mr. Eriksen and others of the diversions of these ditches in different seasons.
    - Q. You divided your investigation into units, did you, in some fashion?
    - A. I have grouped the conclusions as to each individual diversion by their general location, one group being those diversions occurring from Stony Creek below the mouth of Little Stony Creek, a second group being those above the mouth of Little Stony Creek, and the third group those from tributaries of Stony Creek. The conclusions are expressed in terms of a reasonable water requirement for each separate ditch, because as the soils under the different ditches vary my opinion of the quantity of water which would represent a [p. 3131 reasonable use on those lands similarly varies and instead of using averages for all of the ditches I have worked out a conclusion as to each individual diversion.
    - Q. Just so that we have a starting point, Mr. Harding, the amount of requirement per acre expressed in acre feet per acre per season varies between what figures?
    - A. It varied between amounts delivered at the lands of 2-1/2 to 5 acre feet per acre per season.
    - Q. Now if you will go somewhat more into detail and deal with the crop situation, the soil situation, the condition of the ditches and the diversion conditions and the other items or elements which went to make up your conclusions, and then give us your conclusions; I would suggest that you introduce in so far as possible into your testimony the general things before going to the particular ditches.
    - A. I worked on the same general basis or toward the same units as in the case of the Orland Project, that is, on the basis of an examination and classification of the soils and an estimate of the reasonable amount of water to be used in estimating the acre feet per acre for the season for delivery at the land and then an estimate of a reasonable conveyance loss which when applied to the requirements for delivery to the land would give the diversion requirement in similar units to those that were used in reaching similar conclusions as to the Orland Project."
    - Q. I will interject a question there, Mr. Harding, if I may. You stated that you were on the stream and went on the lands in 1919, did you not?
    - A. Yes.
    - Q. And you also had access to all Project data?
    - A. Yes.
    - Q. Were you again on the stream after that period?
    - A. Yes, I was there within about two weeks ago, refreshing my [p. 3132] memory as to the location of these lands and noting such changes as might have occurred in crop conditions since 1919. I made a trip covering two days up the stream in company with Mr. Eriksen. The original examination was almost [?] made in company with Mr. Eriksen, whose familiarity with all these lands was of course of great assistance to me in going over them. The figures that I have used as my conclusions on the reaonable water requirements of these lands perhaps needs some explanation as to what, in a general way, may be meant by such a term as 'reasonable water requirements'. Naturally, any conclusion on the reasonable water requirements of any land will depend on the standard of practice that is used as the basis of that conclusion. The standard of practice which I have used as to these lands and the diversion above that of the Orland Project takes into account the conditions of those lands; they are in many cases rather small scattered areas, land that is somewhat rough, naturally, land which in some cases it is difficult, due to its texture, to be properly levelled, where the diversion ditches are small and in some cases of considerable length, and in consequence give rather relatively high conveyance losses. All of those factors have been taken into account and the reasonable water requirement as I have derived it is, in my opinion, a relatively liberal estimate; that is, it involves the use of a rather liberal standard as to such practice as might be considered reasonable. It is relatively a more liberal standard than I used in estimating the water requirements on the Orland Project. The lands in the case of these smaller ditches are more remote from transporation and other facilities of a similar nature. The standard of practice as one might reasonably expect owners of such small areas to use would be somewhat different from what it would be [p. 3133] reasonable to expect owners to use on a project like the Orland Project, located within a large valley and rather accessible to transportation, where somewhat higher standards of general agricultural practice would be reasonable, so that I consider the conclusions reached are both as to the nature of the estimates as to character of crops, the estimates as to conveyance loss, and the estimates as to the proportion of use that will occur in any one month of the season--in all of those factors I think relatively the conclusions are liberal, for these lands of the upper diversions, as compared to those of the project."
    - Q. In that regard, your conclusions, then, aim at a practical standard, rather than what might be termed a theoretical or ideal standard.
    - MR. RANKIN: "We would like to object to that question, if your Honor please, upon the ground that the witness has not shown that he is qualified to testify to any practical standard of irrigation on that land, that the testimony shows that he never saw the land except in the month of September and it has not been shown that he had any experience in irrigating that land or even saw water on it, so I think the objection is good as to what would be a practical standard."
    - MR. MORTON: In answer to the argument of counsel, I would suggest that we have but to refer to the qualifications of the witness both from a practical and scientific standpoint and that the question is well taken.
    - THE MASTER: I don't see that any of it makes any difference. However, I will sustain the objection.
    - MR. MORTON: We take an exception. If you will go on, Mr. Harding. [Rankin is objecting to the interjection of the government analysis in place of the testimony by the irrigators, which analysis was used for the Findings, etc.? So that even if sustained, the government did it anyway?; testimony continued as if not sustained.]

    p. 3133-8 [HARDING, STANDARD OF PRACTICE in determining requirements] "The standard of practice which I have used in reaching the [p. 3134] conclusions is a standard which, in my opinion, should be readily attainable on those lands without requiring any expense in preparing the lands beyond what it would be reasonable to expect the owner of those lands to do for his own interest in them or to require conditions of attention to the water beyond what would be usual under similar conditions of irrigation. They allow more than might accomplish good results on those lands were higher standards of attention to the water and preparation of the lands involved. They are, in my opinion, quantities of water which it would be entirely reasonable to expect owners of such lands to accomplish in their ordinary irrigation. In considering the reasonable requirements of these lands, I have considered them on the basis of the entire area being used for forage type of crops. The data that was supplied to me as to the crops on these lands at the time of the survey in 1917 gave 80% of the area as being in alfalfa, 10% in pasture, 5% in garden and orchards, and the remaining 5% miscellaneous. My own observations confirmed that the greater part of this area is in use in the forage type of crops and I have considered a water requirement which, in my opinion, is sufficient to irrigate all of the irrgated lands in this type of crop in my conclusions. Where, as in the case of the Orland Project, we have a rather large area, it is reasonable to expect and to depend upon a diversity of crops such as may undoubtedly occur, but in the case of these smaller areas, more remotely located, it is probable that the forage type of crops in many of them will remain the dominating crop, and the water requirements which I have used is a requirement that in my opinion is adequate to irrigate the entire area in this form of crops. It is also [p. 3135] entirely probable that that is more liberal than the actual practice will be; that is, that there will be certain parts of this area either irrigated in other crops or incompletely irrigated, for pasture or otherwise. So that I consider this assumption also liberal as to the water requirements for these lands/ [sic, the slash] After making my examination of the soils, I made certain classifications as to the rates of use in acre feet per acre for delivery to the land per season for the different areas involved. Those classifications used were amounts of 2-1/2, 3, 3-1/2, 4, and 5 acre feet per acre per season delivered to the land, and then applied those amounts to the conditions as I had found them of the soils under each ditch. For areas such as those involved under these ditches it is natural that there should be a good deal of variation in the soil. Many of the areas are small tracts of land scattered along the course of Stony Creek where those soils are the result of the variable action of the Creek in erosion and deposit of silt material and many of them are relatively coarse and contain sands and gravels and even cobbles, and the soils themselves vary to a considerable extent even within the same fields. So that a detailed, exact classification is not possible for such lands, but I have examined each of the general fields and classified them as having requirements of the five amounts which were stated. For those lands for which I consider a use of
    [5] five acre feet per acre reasonable, the soils given in that group would be, in general, those of coarser or more gravelly types that occur along the stream. In those gravelly soils we may find the filling material to be of sandy nature or sandy loam, in some cases containing silt, and the proportion of the coarser material may vary. Usually, it is relatively large. Lands of that character are [p. 3136] porous; they absorb water readily, and they can only retain a relatively small amount of moisture at each irrigation. The result is that where the water table is not within a few feet of the surface of the land, irrigation at relatively frequent periods will be required and the use during the season will be relatively large. One would expect that irrigations at ten days to two weeks [sic] periods or in some cases as high as two or three per cutting would be required on many of such areas. I think on the whole the gravelly lands on the upper creek are not as coarse as certain of the more gravelly soils in the Orland Project and the use of five acre feet per acre per season for the lands up the Creek should be more easily obtained than a similar rate of use on the more difficult Project lands. The group for which I consider a use of
    [4] four acre feet per acre reasonable are similar rather coarse soils, in many cases containing gravel but where the soil filling material is of a finer nature, being what would be classed as a fine sandy silt or even silt in some cases. These soils vary similarly to the others due to the variable effect of the washing of the Creek in there. They would naturally irrigate more easily than the coarser lands and can generally go somewhat longer between irrigations, with less difficulty from deep percolation losses. The area for which I consider a use of five acre feet per acre reasonable represents about 20% of the total area examined. That for which I consider a use of four acre feet per acre reasonable represents about 40% of the total and there are some lands which would be classed as bench lands, that is, they lie somewhat above the lower lands, above the Creek, whose soils are medium heavy, where uses of
    [3-1/2] three and a half acre feet per acre are, in my opinion, reasonable. These soils would come within [p. 3137] the general class of fine sandy soils. They may contain coarse material in some cases although not in as large amounts as on the lower Creek lands. The moisture holding capacity is more favorable, and a use of three and a half acre feet per acre would be obtained without difficult [sic] on them. Their area is about 12% of the total examined. The lands falling within the group for which I consider a use of either
    [3 or 2-1/2] three or two and a half acre feet per acre reasonable are, in the main, those lands lying more generally in the vicinity of Stonyford, which in some cases are bench lands of clay loam texture, or lands which may have a somewhat light texture soil but which are underlaid with a relatively heavy sub-soil. There are in some cases gravels or coarse materials scattered through such lands but they do not control the soil textures as in the case of the gravelly lands along the bottom of the Creek. These comprise in the case of the lands classed as having a reasonable use of three acre feet per acre about 20% of the total area examined, and those for which a reasonable use is considered to be a use of
    [2-1/2] two and a half acre feet of water per acre comprise an area of less than 10% of the total area examined. Coming to the question of conveyance losses, there is little direct data available as to the losses in these ditches; that is, there is practically no direct measurement of the direct loss. Conveyance losses like the use of water on some land is subject to the variable standards as to the amount of such loss which may be considered reasonable. If the conveyance loss in a ditch is excessively large due to a failure to properly maintain such a ditch, it is in my opinion as reasonable to expect an improvement in that condition governing covneyance as it would be in conditions governing the application of water to the lands. [p. 3138] The figures which I have used for the conveyance losses are representative as to my conclusions as to the losses which might be exptected in these ditches under conditions where the attention in keeping the ditch properly maintained is such as one might expect under the existing conditions. The figures used are considerably larger than the corresponding figures used for the estimate on the Orland Project and are, I think, relatively liberal and easily obtained. The loss for each ditch has been estimated on the basis of the capacity of the ditch, its length, and the material through which it is constructed. For the irrigation season on these upper diversions I have considered that in general the length of the season will probably be about 150 days, but that during that season there may be a diversion during a period of one month equalling one-fourth of the total for the season; that is, that the diversion in the months of larger requirements will exceed the average rate for the full operation period and that the amount of the diversion in the month of maximum demand may amount to one-fourth of the total diversion for the season. That is, in turn, also in my opinion a more liberal figure as to the maximum rate of diversion than the 20% which was used for the maximum monthly rate of diversion in figuring the Project requirements. That concludes the general features leading up to the conclusions relating to each of the individual ditches."

    p. 3139 Ditches along STONY BELOW LITTLE STONY:
    p. 3139 A.J. TRIPLETT or Rockville Ditch, 5 a-f/acre, ditch small & through rather coarse material, 20% conveyance loss for half-mile length, land irrigated quite gravelly, high ground water ignored; also p. 3143, 3144
    p. 3140 Rankin: only time you visited upstream lands were in September 1919 and late 11/1923
    p. 3141-2 bored on Triplett/Hineline, on a minor ridge, found ground water 12" down.
    p. 3142-3 Wakefield Ditch, WAKEFIELD & WHALLEY Ditch, 3-1/2 a-f, medium heavy loam 4' thick over gravel, land & ditches well arranged, 1-mile ditch 15% conveyance

    p. 3143-4 [HARDING, DELIVERED PLUS CONVEYANCE IN DIVERSION NUMBER] "...amount estimated as a reasonable requirement to the land would be in that case, 80% of the diversion; that is, five acre feet per acre represents 80% of the diversion, or divide the estimated number of acre feet per acre delivered to the land by the percentage delivered and that would give the acre feet per acre diverted. In this case, divide five acre feet by eight-tenths, which gives you six and a quarter acre feet [p. 3144] diverted and the same method would be used both in connection with the figures that I gave for the Orland Project and for these various ditches....In all cases, the conveyance loss, expressed in percentage, is a percentage of the diversion and not of the delivery."

    p. 3144-45 A.J. TRIPLETT max 1.55 a-f/acre or 1-39th second foot per acre; WAKEFIELD & WHALEY max 4.1 diversion per acre per season, 1 a-f/acre for max month, or 1 second foot/acre., 3148-9

    p. 3145-8 [HARDING, AMOUNT & MONTH OF MAXIMUM DIVERSION] MR. RANKIN: "...that one-fourth of that entire amount of water is used in one month?
    - A. Yes; that is, there may be a period of one month during the irrigation season in which the amount of use will equal one-fourth of the total taken during the season, or in other words I do not think that the use in any one month will exceed one fourth, but it may equal that much.
    - Q. Upon which, Mr. Harding, do you base that conclusion, that one-fourth of the total amount for the season may be used in one [p. 3146] month?
    - A. Because the general season would be about five months, or if water was used at an average rate for that period, about one-fifth in each month. Now the actual use will not be at as large a rate at either the beginning or the end of the season and it is probable that the amount of use which will be required may amount to one-fourth of the total during the period of one month. Out of the total of five months we may have a relatively uniform diversion in three months and half that rate in each of the end months, which would give one-fourth of the total in one month.
    - Q. On what is that conclusion of your [sic] based; is it based on actual irrigation in that vicinity or from that stream, or from your general knowledge of irrigation over the state?
    - A. Both. The records of the diversions of these ditches show that the diversion may be relatively uniform over the low water period while they are being measured. We had the detailed records of the monthly deliveries on the Orland Project showing the proportion that they delivered in the different months and on that, as well as on other information, such as date of use under other systems, I reached the conclusions that they might use as much as one-fourth of their total seasonal use in any one month, but that that figure is relatively liberal and that it is probably larger than may be used in any season.
    - Q. Do I understand your conclusion to be, as you have expressed it, that they might use one-fourth or that they do use one-fourth?
    - A. The reason for using any figure for the maximum monthly use is to determine a monthly rate of diversion of any ditch. If we used the same figure as the number of acre feet that a certain ditch might be entitled to divert during the season--during the length of the season, that figure and the conveyance loss would [p. 3147] be the rate of diversion. Now, if we took a certain number of total acre feet for a ditch and considered that they would operate over a 150-day season and they received a decree which only permitted them to divert at the average rate, they would not be able to meet their needs for water in the hotter months of the season, or that the rate of use in those months of larger rate of consumption of moisture should exceed the average rate for the season as a whole.
    - Q. To complete that data, Mr. Harding, is it necessary to specify what particular month this one-fourth of the whole amount might be used?
    - A. That would depend on the form of decree which might be used in defining the right of such a ditch. There might be a form of decree in which the amount that might be diverted in each month was specified. The amount diverted in each month, particularly the earlier and later months of the season, is subject to variation with the different climatic conditions in different seasons. The use of the 25% as I have used it, would result, taken with the area under ditch, in computing a figure in terms of second feet which might be set as the limit rate of diversion of such a ditch.
    - Q. During any time during the season?
    - A. The decree might be in the form that a ditch could divert some number of second feet, without specifying the definite dates between which those diversions might be made, but it would be such a quantity in rate of diversion that it would meet the requirements of that ditch at any time during the season.
    - MR. MORTON: Q. And its only limitation would be in the total number of acre feet for the season?
    - A. Provided such an addtional limitation were provided in the decree. [p. 3148]
    - MR. RANKIN: Q. I notice that you have concluded the irrigation in this district to consist of 150 days, or five months. Now, why the difference in time of the length of the irrigation season between the Stony Creek lands that you are speaking of and the Orland Project, where you have placed that period at more than 6 months?
    - A. It is due to soil, crop and climatic conditions. Quite a part of the very late irrigation season on the Orland Project is due in some years to a desire for late orchard irrigation, where we are not considering orchard crops on these upper river lands. The difference is also partly due to the fact that on the coarser texture lands on the Orland Project, having a lower moisture holding capacity, irrigation is needed later in the year than in the upper river lands because the coarser lands on the Orland Project do not have a water table as near the surface as in the case with these upper river lands, and also the difference there might be in the amounts of precipitation, and although this might be relatively small it might be in favor of a later limitation in the diversions from the upper stream.
    - Q. Then in arriving at that conclusion you didn't take into consideration any question of the shortage or failure of the water supply in Stony Creek?
    - A. No; all figures that I have as to the reasonable water requirements of these lands are independent of whether or not the supply is available to meet that demand. It is an amount which in my opinion would be fully adequate for their irrigation, assuming the water to be available."

    p. 3149 "FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION

    - [HARDING, 150-DAY SEASON] MR. GEIS: Q. I want to ask you, Mr. Harding, as to whether or not you have taken 150 days as the maximum irrigation season of all of the lands excepting the Orland Project?
    - A. No; I used the term 150 days largely as a generalization of the usual condition. I make no other use of that period of 150 days in reaching the conclusions other than the indirect use that the diversion in any one month may amount to 25% of the total for the season. In some seasons it might be less than 150 days and in some cases over, just as the operting season on the Orland Project varies from season to season with the climatic conditions. It is not a rigid figure in any sense.
    - REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    - MR. MORTON: Q. Your results would not be changed, for example, as I understand it, in the case an occasional use of some water, either very early in the season or late in the season, should be made?
    - A. No, that would not affect the use in the main months of the season. If an early irrigation was given it would be given to supply a deficiency of precipitation in that season but would not affect the amount needed to be used in the main months of the season."

    p. 3150 ABE L. TRIPLETT-1 2/3 5 a-f/acre (gravelly soil), 1/3 4 a-f/acre (considerable sediment - boring, 5-1/2 feet deep without encountering gravel), 1-1/2 mile ditch, diversion 6.7 a-f, max 1.7 a-f/acre or 1/37th second foot/acre,

    p. 3151 "FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION

    - [HARDING, MORE ON MONTHS OF MAXIMUM USE] MR. MORTON: Q. It occurs to me that I might ask one question more about this month of maximum requirement. Your purpose in establishing such a figure, Mr. Harding, was to secure a larger diversion than the average, to cover the hot summer months or the time of greater water requirement, was it not?
    - A. Yes, such a diversion is necessary for proper irrigation and the figure given would result in such a larger rate of diversion.
    - Q. You don't mean, of course that it is limited to one month, but it might extend for two months, or a month and three-quarters, or two and a quarter months, or some other figure than one month, and be compensated for by a less diversion in the time of less demand?
    - A. It might actually extend for anything up to of course a [p. 3152] total of four months. It probably would extend for more than one month in normal years; that is to say, in a period of three months it might approximate this same rate.
    - Q. Those are the hot summer months, or the time of greater demand?
    - A. Yes."

    p. 3152 HARMON 1-1/2 mile ditch, 4' of medium heavy sediment soil underlain with gravel, ground water at 4' depth in lower field, none in upper field, 3-1/2 a-f/acre, conveyance loss 25%, 4.7 a-f/acre per season, 1/2 a-f/acre in max month.

    p. 3153 [HARDING, FLOWS vs. MONTHLY TOTALS] "MR. MORTON: Q. ...and I think maybe it might be a good idea for you to explain that calculation a little bit more fully, so that it can be in the record and can be typical of all of the cases.
    - A. A second foot of water flowing for a month would provide an amount equal to 59-1/2 acre feet in a 30 day month and 61-1/2 acre feet in a 31 day month. If we have a condition where we desire to divert 1/2 acre feet per acre during a month and we are using a 30 day month, we divide 59-1/2 by 1/2 and we would get the number of acres which can be given such a supply by continuous flow during that month of one second foot.
    - Q. And your fundamental equation is that a second foot flowing for 24 hours will produce an approximate depth upon a acre of 2 feet, or 2 acre feet?
    - A. One second foot of water flowing 24 hours will give a quantity closely equal to 2 feet of water.
    - Q. A fraction less, isn't it?
    - Nearly one per cent less. For all ordinary purposes two acre feet is used."

    p. 3153-4 SOETH 1 mile ditch, 4 a-f/acre, conveyance 20%, for 5 a-f/ acre, max 1-1/4 a-f/acre, 1 s-f/49 acres; heavier sandy soil with more or less gravel
    p. 3154-5 KNIGHT 1-1/2 mile ditch, 4 a-f/acre, 25% conveyance, 5.3 a-f total, 1.3 max, 1 s-f/46 acres; gravelly sandy loam
    p. 3155 JOHN JOHANSEN ditch #1, smaller of the 2, east side of Stony or right side, 4 a-f/acre, 15% conveyance, 4.7 total, 1.2 a-f/acre max, 1 s-f/51 acres, mixed fairly heavy river bottom silt with some coarser gravelly soil
    p. 3155-8 JOHN JOHANSEN 3-mile ditch #2, west or left bank of creek,
  • Johansen: medium heavy loam w/variable smaller gravel, bored in center gravelly loam 1', medium heavy loam to 4' to gravel, wet at 3 feet, water at 1' at lower end
  • p. 3156 TRUE: 3' rather heavy loam, water & gravel at 3-1/2 feet,
  • p. 3156-7 STRAWN: lower a medium sandy silt, upper sandy & gravelly; all 4 a-f/acre, 25% conveyance, 5.3 a-f, or 1.3 max, 1 s-f/46 acres
    p. 3156-8 Rankin: if Strawn alone, might make it a bit higher? if Johansen alone, how much? maybe 3-1/2 a-f because of the high water table
    p. 3158 BAYLEY (aka Carnes, Saunders Brothers') 2-mile ditch
  • Bayley: loam texture to about 3 feet, then gravel, ground water at 3-1/2 feet; 4 a-f,
  • GOLLNICK: coarse soil, long strip; 5 a-f, 30% conveyance, 6.3 a-f/acre, 1.6 a-f max 1 s-f/38 acres
    p. 3159 GATLIFF 2-mile ditch, alfalfa [does the award in the Decree forevermore depend on the crop in place at the moment? they get ding'd for having checks?] border checks, low bench, light clay loam 2', heavier loam 3rd & 4th foot, gritty clay loam 5th foot, 3-1/2 a-f/acre, 25% conveyance, 4.7 total, 1.2 a-f max, 1 s-f/51 acres
    p. 3160 ANGLE/TROXEL 1-1/4 mile ditch
  • SAWYER: fine sandy silt, gravel at 1' at lower end, no gravel to 6' at upper end, soil wet
  • FEIGHTNER: like lower Sawyer
  • MULFORD: like upper Sawyer
  • TROXEL: sandy silt, overwet, unleveled, ground water close to surface; 3-1/2 a-f, conveyance 25%, or 4.7, or 1.2 max, 1 s-f/51 acres
    p. 3160 BEDFORD 1-1/4 mile ditch,
  • FEIGHTNER: fine sandy silt , fine gravel at 1'; a few fruit trees
  • BEDFORD, similar, some gravel, not well-leveled, irrigation not uniform; 4 a-f, 25% conveyance, 5.3 total, 1.3 max, 1 s-f/46 acres
    p. 3161 BICKFORD pump, water 2' down, heavy bottom silt, 4 a-f, 10% conveyance, or 4-1/2 a-f, 1.1 max, 1 s-f/55 acres
    p. 3162 VAN SYOC pumping plant, missing, light clay loam 8-10' deep, compacts at 5-6', gravel scattered on surface, 3-1/2 a-f, zero conveyance because pump would be right there, .9 max, 1 s-f/70 acres
    p. 3162 WILLIAM NIESEN 4-inch centrifugal pump, fine sandy silt, ground water close to surface, willows at lower end of field, 3-1/2 a-f, zero conveyance, .9 a-f max, 1 s-f/70 acres
    p. 3163 E.E. SMITH 4" centrifugal pump, find sand with more or less gravel approaching a silt loam in places, requires care & application to prevent percolation losses, 3-1/2 a-f, zero conveyance, .9 max, 1 s-f/70 acres
    p. 3163 G.W. MARKHAM rough bench near the creek, coarse soil with gravel, largely orchard, based estimate on alfalfa 5 a-f (orchards would be 3), zero conveyance, 1.4 max, 1 s-f/46 acres
    p. MALLON & BLEVINS 3/4 mile ditch, and pump, ditch filled in at the farm road crossing w/no culvert; pump pipe disconnected;
  • ditch: fine sandy loam or silt loam, with gravel where cross-washes, fruit trees
  • pump: loam with fine gravel, leveled alfalfa in rectangular checks, with orchard at south end showing lack of moisture but in fair condition; 4 a-f, ditch 15% conveyance, pump zero, average 4.6 a-f, 1.15 max, 1 s-f/52 acres; only difference between ditch & pump is conveyance

    p. 3166 BIG STONY ABOVE LITTLE STONY, FOUTS SPRINGS COMPANY, 2 one-mile ditches, coarse soil w/gravel & sub-angular rock, thin soil, water readily absorbed without spreading, appeared a deep fill of rather coarse material from adjacent hills, 5 a-f, 20% conveyance, 6.5 total, 1.55 max, 1 s-f/39 acres
    p. 3166-7 Geis, regarding different allowances on different lands
    p. 3168 Fouts requires a large head
    p. 3168-9 Rock angular as opposed to creek-rounded, Fouts soul thwarted boring efforts;
    p. 3169 soil conditions would require 10-12 applications for alfalfa; "...they find 12 applications necessary on the coarser lands in the Orland Project;" Fouts season is shorter
    p. 3170 Fouts soil as porous as any creek-bottom land in watershed

    p. 3170-1 [HARDING, ROTATION] "MR. MORTON: Q. Mr. Harding, with reference to your maximum allowances for diversions, when you speak og [sic] using a greater head than those maximum allowances, you refer then to the use of rotation as between ditches, do you not?
    - A. I do.
    - Q. That is a matter for administration of water on the stream or a matter for agreement as between the individuals immediately affected, is it not?
    - A. It is; that is, it is essential to fix in a decree some limiting quantities to the rights to diversion so that there will not be an accumulation of rotation demands without proper distribution over the time and that adjustment of the individual rotations is a matter of administration, in the administration of such a decree.
    - Q. Where there is a considerable area, they can sometimes rotate as between fields and obviate that very feature?
    - A. Yes; that is of course done on the Orland Project. Where the area under the ditch is too small, as is the case in certain of these ditches, so that the average diversion gives a reasonable irrigation head, rotation is essential for adequate results. I don't think any of these lands along the stream should be attempted to be irrigated with heads of [p. 3171] say less than 2 second feet, and if the area, as is the case in certain instances, is only a few acres, it would have to be rotation delivery to give them any effective results.
    - Q. That is the economical practice?
    - A. Yes, it is....

    p. 3172 but 2 s-f at Fouts might be too much & yield erosion; similar porous land on flatter slopes may use larger heads with advantage.

    p. 3172 [Mr. Geis] "...Q. I understand your testimony to be that at Orland the irrigating season may extend from sometime in the latter part of March until November?
    - A. That is correct, although during that period all crops are not irrigated for a period as long as that. It may start in the spring on certain crops and finish in the fall with others."

    p. 3174 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

    - p. 3174 [HARDING, HEAD vs. RIGHT; ROTATION] MR. MORTON: Q. In mentioning or commenting on the irrigation head required, you in no way refer to the water right feature of the situation, do you, Mr. Harding?
    - A. No, my understanding of the term 'irrigation head' would be distinguished from the decree on a ditch.
    - Q. In other words, the irrigation head, when you refer to irrigation head, simply means that you are referring to the administration of a stream system, which is largely accomplished by rotation as between ditches, do you?
    - A. I do.
    - FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION
    - MR. RANKIN: One question, please. Q. Along these lines, Mr. Harding, when you refer to the two-foot head or the two or threee-foot head, in answer to a question relative to this particular piece of land, do you intend that testimony to go generally to all those lands along the Creek?
    - A. The statements I made were both general and also specific to this Fouts Springs land. I did make some statements that were general; that is, that in general, the coarser lands in all these ditches can be more readily [sic, what's missing?] if heads of not less than two feet were used.
    - Q. And that that would be a minimum, economical and beneficial manner of handling the water on all those lands.
    - A. Yes.
    - MR. RANKIN: That is all.
    - FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    - MR. MORTON: Q. It would enable you to get over the lands faster and shorten the time of each irrigation?
    - A. It would. Assuming as an illustration that we had a ditch for which a reasonable diversion in the months of maximum use might be at the rate of a second foot to 60 acres, if they were only irri- [p. 3175] gating 15 acres under that ditch, this decree would be on the basis of one-fourth of a second foot. Now, if they irrigated continuously, not only is the use less economical, but the labor involved on the part of the owner is much greater than it would be if he could get one second foot for one-fourth of the time, or two second feet for one-half of the time, or any other arrangement of rotation feasible, but those are matters that are properly handled in the administration of the stream and not in the quantity decreed to the ditch."

    p. 3175 Morton: BICKFORD, conveyance disappears if move from ditch to pipe [another penalty for good irrigation practices]
    p. 3175-6 LEWIS & TAYLOR 3-mile ditch; F.C. WOODS
  • TAYLOR: bench lands, reddish clay loam with some mixed-in gravel, good slope, well-laid out for irrigation,
  • LEWIS: some border checks, sufficiently heavy bench lands, so no problem with excessive absorption; nearer to the bench is less porous than that further out near the bottom lands; fine sandy loam north of the field at the foot of the bench; south of the road near the bench 2' of good gritty loam with heavier soil in the third foot; east further into the bottom coarser soil, some with considerable gravel or maybe cobbles, land as far as main road to the east "an open soil"; bench: 2-1/2 a-f; 20 acres just under the bench 3 a-f; remainder, 40% 4 a-f, 60% 5 a-f; netted average 3.7 a-f, conveyance 30%, 5.3 total, 1.3 max, 1 s-f/46 acres
  • F.C. WOODS: half-mile above the ditch head [?], fine sand, johnson grass, good shape for irrigation and water well-handled, 4 a-f, 10% conveyance, 4-1/2 a-f total, 1.1 max a s-f/55 acres
  • MARY O'LEARY: reddish gravelly gritty loam 3-1/2 a-f, 30% conveyance
    p. 3178 GCID withdraws "Order Confirming Sale by Special Master", Exhibit S, substitute certified copy for it

    p. 3180 FRIDAY, 12/14/1923
    p. 3180 HARDING recalled
    p. 3180 FAIRLEE 1/2 mile ditch, upper gravelly near center, deeper loam or sediment near bluff, other field fine sandy with gravelly knolls, 4 a-f, 15% conveyance, 4.7 a-f, 1.2 max, 1 s-f/51 acres
    p. 3181-6 SUTLIFF 1-1/2 mile ditch, WITCHER now CHASTAIN, SALISBURY now SUTLIFF;
  • bench on west side of SUTLIFF ranch, reddish gritty clay near the hill, further down the hill a light gritty clay loam, near hill 4 feet of clay soil, further from the hill carries gravel in most places, field smooth, ditch well arranged for flooding, 2-1/2 a-f; to southwest, looser, fine sandy sediment with gravel on surface and at 2' depths, smooth for irrigation, 3-1/2 a-f; east aide of Sutliff alfalfa gravelly around edges of field, fine sand soil in center 4 a-f; remaining coarse bottom land, irregular areas cut by sloughs, 40% 5 a-f, 60% 4 a-f;
  • FOUTCH: similar, sand & gravel soil smooth as to surface with small ridges across the area, 5 a-f
  • WITCHER: coarse soil sandy to 5 feet or a mixture of sand & gravel, 5 a-f
  • SALIBURY: fine sandy soil, more gravelly towards the west 4 a-f; overall, 20% conveyance, total 5.0, 1-1/4 max, 1 s-f/49 acres

    p. 3183-4 [HARDING: MONTH OF MAXIMUM USE]
    - "[Mr. Morton] Q. I notice that very often you say a certain number of acre feet per acre for the month of maximum use. Possibly inasmuch as there is sometimes more than one month of maximum use, or approximately that maximum use, that a better statement would be, would it not, Mr. Harding, to say: So many acre feet per acre per month at the time of maximum use--would it not?
    - A. That is the meaning of the term as it has been used in all cases when the reference has been to the rate of use during the portion of the season when the rate of use is at the maximum.
    - Q. When you speak of it in the other way you simply refer to the fact that at least there will be, in your judgment, a month of maximum use and that month however might be ex- [p. 3184] tended into a considerably longer period and be compensated for at either end, so far as maximum uses are concerned, by a less use at either end?
    - A. Yes."

    p. 3184-6 Rankin, what if one of the parties sharing a ditch defaults in making proof, how would that affect the conveyance loss allowed for other users? wants conveyance for each right, not just an average.

    p. 3185 [HARDING, CONVEYANCE LOSSES, HEADS, VOLUMES, ROTATION]
    - "[Mr. Rankin] Q. Would the fact that a smaller stream of water be diverted for that long distance, in the case of only that land--two small tracts irrigated from the ditch--have a tendency to increase the proportion of conveyance loss?
    - A. If that small stream were taken continuously, there would be such a loss, but if the same conditions regarding the use of an irrigation head of which I testified yesterday, were applied to this smaller area, that would be the case.
    - Q. If the administration of the ditch required the rotation of the use, the loss you gave would be sufficient?
    - A. That would, in my opinion.
    - Q. Have your figures on the conveyance loss been based on other cases in the same way?
    - A. In some cases, yes, and in some cases, no. In the case of those diversions serving such small areas within a continuous flow, giving a very small amount of diversion, there would be required some rotation to bring about both a reasonable irrigation and a reasonable conveyance loss. For any diversion where the area served is sufficient to give a fair size of head, even on the basis of a continuous diversion, the seepage losses which I have given would not be dependent on any rotation."

    p. 3186 separating it out, for CHASTAIN and FOUTCH, conveyance loss of 20%, 6-1/4 a-f, 1.55 a-f max, 1 s-f/39 acres
    p. 3186 ALEX BROWN 1-1/2 mile ditches, branches, sloughs;
  • N/E Q Section 29, S/E Q Section 20, dark fine sandy silt or sediment, 2 feet of fine sand below, water at 5 feet, smooth surface, good ditch locations, part in 20 somewhat gravelly, 3rd piece also sediment soil with more or less gravel; main field southwest from ranch buildings uniform silty loam with considerable gravel around the edges, boring 3 feet of silty loam, fine sand in 4th foot, gravel at 4 feet; small field to the east rougher surface; main field good surface, ditches well-placed; 2 fields near turn in main road, gritty soil, considerable gravel - northerly mainly medium to light silt & considerable gravel, northeast corner lower with more sediment, ditches well-located; 4 a-f, parts coarser needing more, parts better needing ??, 4 an average, conveyance 25%, 5.3 a-f, 1.3 max, 1 s-f/46 acres
    p. 3188 PAINE 1 mile ditch fine sandy silt considerable gravel, rough surface, 4 a-f, conveyance 20%, 5 a-f/acre, 1-1/4 max, 1 s-f/49 acres (Morton, only 1/2 mile: 2 ditches, one used, one old? 1/2 mile: conveyance 10%, 4-1/2 a-f, 1.1 max, 1 2-4/55 acres ),
    pp. 3190-1 Rankin: challenging conveyance losses as being solely a function of length, Harding says he took into account soil types.

    pp. 3190-1 [HARDING, CONVEYANCE THROUGH SOIL TYPES]
    - "[Mr Rankin] Q. Do you base those conveyance losses on the length of the conveyance ditch solely, or do you take into consideration the condition of the soil through which the ditch is constructed?
    - A. The estimates of reasonable conveyance loss are based on the character of material or soil [p. 3192] through which the ditch is excavated, its capacity and its length. The three factors all affect the extent of seepage loss.
    - Q. The various ditches to which you have testified are not constructed in uniform soil structure, are they?
    - A. They are not.
    - Q. The soil structure is different in the different ditches?
    - A. It is. Such differences have been taken into account in my estimates and the amount of loss per unit of length for the different ditches is not uniform."

    p. 3191-3 MORRIS-WELTON ditch, average length 1/2 mile; changes, J.W. MORRIS to THOMAS FAIRLEE, WALKUP to EDITH MCGAHAN as Administratrix, etc.;
  • [T.W., J.M., or J.W.?] MORRIS/FAIRLEE, lower lying adjacent to creek, fine sandy soil 2-1/2 feet over gravel on higher part of field, even slope, well ditched;
  • MCGAHAN part on bottom, part on adjacent bench, bottom a gritty sediment with gravel; bench by pump from ditch;
  • WELTON 2 feet of gritty loam soil over gravel with gravel mixed in in places, land smooth and ditches well-placed; overall classified as bottom even though the bench; 4 a-f, conveyance 15%, 4.7 a-f total, 1.2 a-f max, 1 s-f/51 acres.

    p. 3193-3206 KESSELRING 2-mile ditch: CHARLES E. PEARSON, F.M. KESSELRING, G.W. SUTLIFF, I.L. ROBERTSON, A.T. WELTON
  • PEARSON, 4 feet gritty loam to 2 feet, heavier soil in 3rd foot, more gritty in 4th foot, over gravel, recent irrigation yielded water at 3 feet; south of slough a heavy clay loam dry to cracked at surface, moist at 1 foot, gravel at 2-1/2 feet, more gravelly towards east side with fill of gritty loam texture; 4 a-f for 20 acres towards the east boundary, 3 for the rest;
  • p. 3194 WELTON 4 acres, oval shaped area into N/W corner of NW 1/4 S32
  • KESSELRING, north of road and west of Salt Creek a gravelly gritty loam on higher portions, considerable gravel and mixed sediment; 2 triangular pieces east of Salt Creek also a gritty loam with gravel; below the ditch east of Salt Creek like that on the west becoming heavier towards the east; south and east of Stonyford a heavier soil, dry and cracked at time visited, some border checks, coarser at lower portion; largest field north and east of Stonyford even surface well-ditched--1 foot gritty loam underlaid by yellow clay 1 to 2-1/2 feet, gravel at 2-1/2 feet in some portions, east end of field near slough lower, some wet & with swamp grasses, higher coarser gritty soil--2 feet of gritty loam soil underlaid by a foot of stiff clay loam; field near schoolhouse a gritty heavy loam soil with fine gravel underlaid by heavier sub-soil, with border checks;
  • SUTLIFF, mixed ownership, Creamery buildings in Stonyford on it, gritty loam with gravel underlaid by heavier sub-soil
  • WELTON, gravelly sediment soil
  • ROBERTSON, north of KESSELRING, resembles adjacent KESSELRING soils; PEARSON, KESSELRING, SUTLIFF, 3 a-f; WELTON coarser, 4 a-f; overall 20% conveyance, 3.9 a-f diversion, 1 a-f/acre max, 1 s-f/62 acres; excluding WELTON, 3 a-f, 20% conveyance, 3.75 diversion, .9 a-f max, 1 s-f/70 acres; WELTON less than 20% maybe 10% conveyance;
    pp. 3197-9 Geis: borings? maybe 3-4 borings on PEARSON, 6-8 borings on KESSELRING; gravel channels? [not looking for them, but they may be there]; if channels, isn't more water required? would affect drainage, not delivery; soils fairly uniform with pockets more gravelly, the more of those there are, the more water needed;
    p. 3199 Geis, excess back to the creek? into whatever outlet there might be unless accumulating in the subsoil
    p. 3200-01 Geis, traverse the ditch or walk it lenghthwise, soils under ditch affect conveyance losses, how can you judge merely by crossing it at intervals? crossed it at intervals, soils coarser at upper end, heavy material around PEARSON lands, flume over Salt Creek, good material to KESSELRING lands, 5% conveyance adequate for upper length
    p. 3201-3 Geis, heads? KESSELRING lands large enough to receive a head sufficient to allow rotation within the ditch users, would need a head of 2-3 s-f; if insufficient supply for that head, conveyance losses would increase? [talked around the question, but seems to be "yes"]
    p. 3203 on these lands, problem is not percolation, but inability of soil to absorb more moisture than would be sufficient to carry over, requiring more frequent light irrigations rather than heavy ones, might need 10 irrigations for 5 cuttings
    p. 3204 SUTLIFF included Mrs. I.W. MCGAHAN Garden, CATHOLIC CHURCH, THOMAS FAIRLEE
    p. 3205 KESSELRING the largest ditch, 3 s-f head adequate
    p. 3205 correcting WELTON, 4 a-f, conveyance 10%, 4-1/2 a-f total, 1.1 a-f max, 1 s-f/55 acres

    p. 3206 ELIZABETH A. ROGERS 3/4 mile ditch, fine sandy silt containing gravel, 20% conveyance, 5 a-f, 1-1/4 a-f max, 1 s-f/49 acres

    p. 3206 Next, tributaries of Stony Creek, first LITTLE STONY:
    p. 3206 J.W. EDWARDS 2 half mile ditches, both sides of creek, east by flume crossing channel, soil generall coarse; west fine sandy sediment mixed with coarse, 5 a-f, 15% conveyance, 5.9 a-f/acre, 1.5 a-f max, 1 s-f/40 acres

    FRIDAY, 12/14/1923 - AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:30 P.M.
    p. 3208 JOEL FORD pump, 5 a-f, zero conveyance, 1-1/4 max, 1 s-f/acre; these the only 2 Little Stony diversions below East Park;

    p. 3209 SALT CREEK [the one just west of Stonyford]:
    p. 3209 EDITH McGAHAN, flume is gone, loam 2 to 3 feet over gravel, 5 a-f/acre, zero conveyance, 1-1/4 a-f max, 1 s-f/49 acres
    p. 3209 KESSELRING from Salt Creek above KESSELRING Ditch; southeastern heavy & sufficiently fine to crack when dry, main coarser more gravel, creek erosion shows 1-2 feet soil above coarser sub-soil, 10 acres heavier, remainder coarser; heavy 3 a-f, coarser 5 a-f, conveyance 15%, diversion 5-1/2 a-f, 1.4 max, 1 s-f/44 acres

    p. 3210 ELK CREEK:
    p. 3210 PROVENCE, E.W. BURNHAM, MANSON, 3 areas, assume 5 a-f/acre, 20% conveyance loss, 6-1/4 a-f/acre, 1.55 a-f max, 1 s-f/39 acres

    p. 3211 GRINDSTONE CREEK:
    p. 3211 EDWARDS & HUNTER: soils a fine sand with considerable gravel, 2 feet over gravel on EDWARDS, greater depth on HUNTER, porous requiring more frequent applications; 5 a-f/acre, 20% conveyance which exceeds supply in many seasons, 6-1/4 a-f/acre, 1.55 max, 1 s-f/39 acres
    p. 3211 G.E.ELLIS assume same rate as EDWARDS & HUNTER; info supplied is from Mr. Eriksen

    p. 3212 UPPER WATERSHEDS; small scattered areas, larger uses, greater precipitation and shorter season, high maximum demand

    p. 3212 [HARDING, INFO FROM ERIKSEN, REMOTE TRACTS]
    - "MR. MORTON: Q. Mr. Harding, you have referred in two instances to information furnished you. In a general way, where was that secured?
    - A. From Mr. Eriksen, both verbally and from such records as he obtained. the basis of the statement made as to the use were by asking Mr. Eriksen to compare these lands which I had not seen with those lands which I had seen and which he considered most nearly equivalent to them.
    - Q. Now, as to the lands generally in the upper reaches of the watershed, there are occasional small plots that are irrigated in the higher reaches of the watershed; for instance, above the reservoir and higher up on some of the tributaries; from your knowledge of conditions in the watershed, could you make any sort of a general estimate as to what the water requirements for those lands might be?
    - A. I would expect that those types of small scattered areas would be of relatively coarse soil and would probably fall in the group for which larger amounts of use have been considered reasonable. If they are located towards the higher parts of the drainage area, so that the precipitation is greater and the growing season perhaps somewhat shorter, the total use during the season might be somewhat less than for the same soil located further down the stream, but the use during a month of maximum demand would probably be at the same rate as for similar soils on the lower areas."

    pp. 3212-3215 [HARDING, CONVEYANCE LOSSES/STUDY THROUGHOUT THE WEST]

    - "[MR. MORTON] Q. I wish you would tell us a little more about your method of estimating conveyance losses. Just in a general way, so that we can get at the principle upon which you based your estimates in that regard. [p. 3213]
    - A. About ten years ago, when I was in the employ of the federal Department of Agriculture, I made a study of all obtainable records of measurements of seepage from canals throughout the western states. That information was used in a portion of a bulletin proposed by the Chief of that Division, Mr. Fortier, on canal linings. Thus results were analyzed in terms both of percentage loss per mile and in terms of the amount of seepage in cubic feet per day per square foot of wetted area, and from that various generalizations of average seepages in different classes of soil were made, and I have drawn on the experience of that relatively detailed study of records of seepage in estimating the conveyance losses in those ditches. I have also had a number of occasions to measure seepage losses under actual ditches and to observe ditches for which I had available the records of seepage obtained by others, and used all of this experience and study in estimating the losses. I estimated the reasonable seepage that would ordinarily be expected, taking into account the character of soil through which the ditch had been excavated, its capacity and its length.
    - Q. In that investigation that you made some time ago, which as I understand it was an extremely comprehensive one, many thousands of cases, or many hundred--whatever it might be--were looked at. Did you not only secure the facts as to the actual losses, but also make estimates and reach conclusions as to reasonable losses under practical conditions?
    - A. I did. Of course in such a large body of data there were, actually, as I recall it, some six or eight hundred individual measurements assembled in that study. There [p. 3214] were included instances of both good, medium and poor practice and the figures which I have used in these estimated losses for the ditches diverting from Stony Creek are in my opinion relatively liberal; that is, they represent figures corresponding to the rather higher amounts of loss shown by these measurements. We were speaking yesterday of the loss in the canals of the Orland Project, where I used a total loss of 25% of the water diverted, where the distance of conveyance would average some 10 or 12 miles, or, putting it in terms of per cent. per mile, somewhere about 2-1/2% per mile loss in the canal systems of the Orland Project. The figures which have been given for the ditches up Stony Creek would give an average loss per mile of generally in excess of 10% per mile, or four times or more greater loss, in terms of per cent. per mile, than those figures used for the Orland Project.
    - Q. How do you regard your figures generally as to the estimate of water requirements--to be on the liberal or conservative side?
    - A. They are in my opinion on the liberal side. The quantities allowed would permit the full number of irrigations necessary during the season for full production of crop, with an amount applied at each application sufficient to enable the land to be fully covered without requiring an extent of properation [sic] of the land or of labor in connection with the handling of the water beyond what could reasonably be expected under the conditions of ordinary practice.
    - Q. You referred to a study of seepage losses--a comprehensive study of seepage losses--made by you; did you there again use the phrase 'seepage losses' in its generic sence [sic] as conveyance seepage losses generally?
    - A. Yes, it includes both conveyance losses and evaporation."

    p. 3212-5, conveyance loss methodology: participated in a USDA study of ditches over soil types, analyzing effect of linings, developed formulae for losses per mile per lining type per soil type, maintenance, design & construction practices, including evaporation losses; allowances described here are liberal: Project 2-1/2% per mile, upstream 10% per mile or more

    p. 3215 Rankin, asking for separate numbers:
    p. 3215-6 JOHN JOHANSEN ditch #1 was discussed separately yesterday; JOHN JOHANSEN ditch #2: 4 a-f/acre, 25% conveyancer; TRUE & STRAWN lands therein: ground water & other soil conditions make a use a bit less than whole ditch [?], 3-1/2 a-f/acre to JOHANSEN, which are nearer the diversion--allowing 12% or 12-1/2% per mile with 1-1/2 miles for 18% conveyance, making 4-1/2 a-f/acre/season or 1.05 max, 1 s-f/58 acres; 4-1/2 a-f/acre TRUE & STRAWN 30% conveyance making 6.1 a-f, 1-1/2 a-f max, 1 s-f/37 acres;
    [end of HARDING]

    p. 3217-3240 --
    p. 3217 MR. BURCH, supplement his previous & discuss Riparian claims: Morton: "by reason of the testimony now introduced we have been able to somewhat curtail the amount of the riparian claims and get it to a more conservative basis. If we had used the pleadings along [sic], without their modification by the evidence, we would have had very many thousands of acres of riparian claims."
    p. 3217-8 correcting his previous testimony transcripts
    p. 3218 by the pleadings, sifted by subsequent testimony, riparian claims now reduced to 4,000 acres
    p. 3219 lands now irrigated or prepared for irrigation upstream about 2,600 acres from normal natural unregulated flow; making for a shortage; 2 diagrams: 1) flow and shortage in cfs; 2) "flow and demand, also the shortage, in years when there were shortages, in per cent of demand."; both diagrams, 1920-23, years for which they had "more comprehensive gauges and figures for this particular branch of the investigation [Morton]"
    p. 3220 "Plaintiff's Exhibit 27 for Identification" [MISSING], map [and diagram?], 2 conditions of 1) demand, and 2) shortage & the natural flow of Stony Creek 1920-23; lower curved line represents the natural flow in cfs; broken line just above the demand of lands prepared for irrigation, that is, the 2,600 acres plus Project lands; broken & dotted line above that the demand if 4,000 acres of riparian claims were provided with water [cumulative? by themselves?]; vertical bars are shortage under the two conditions of demand, with the red bar the shortage in second feet per half-month
    p. 3220-23 [testimony & exhibits ignore that different rates of flow occur at different locations in the watershed? in that underflow or lack of it, tributary feed or lack of it, and so on, are not considered? this is a gloss? remember that when Reclamation got approval for all this, they represented to the Secretary of the Interior that upstream uses would not be a problem]
    p. 3224 yellow bars show shortages if the 4,000 riparian acres are included

    p. 3226 "A. The water requirements were based on a gross duty of 4-12 a [sic] acre feet for the lands above the Orland Project, and for 4 acre feet for the lands on the Orland Project
    - [Morton] Q. In other words that the lands above the Orland Project would divert 4-12 acre feet per acre?
    - A. Yes.
    - Q. And that the lands of the Orland Project would require to divert there from that natural flow, 4 acre feet per acre?
    - A. Yes.
    - Q. Are those figures larger or smaller than Mr. Harding's figures?
    - A. I believe I don't know just what the sum of his totals for the lands above the Project was, but I think for the lands on the Project, they are just about the same--a little less than Mr. Harding's estimate of the average of the Lands above the Project."

    p. 3226-9 Lower Diagram, like upper, but "total demand is depicted on a presumptive allocation of water to the riparian claims, plus the land now under irrigation"; upper diagram, cfs; lower, "shortage in percentage of the amount of demand and the time element" again in months & half-months; lower diagram "Plaintiff's Exhibit 28 for Identification ["Regimen of Stony Creek from May to September, inclusive, Percent of requirement]" (and 27 "Regimen of Stony Creek from May to September, inclusive, second feet") [both MISSING]
    p. 3228 Burch: "In my opinion, if an attempt were made to distribute the available flow of Stony Creek over 4,000 acres in addition to that at present prepared to receive water, the irrigators on Stony Creek above the Orland Project would practically be put out of business."
    p. 3229 if the Project had to share with an additional 4,000 acres 1/5th of the Project's water would be lost [Burch ends]

    p. 3229-30 Morton: Amended Complaint Exhibits A-E & E Supplement, certified copies submitted as Plaintiff's Exhibits 29-34; Exhibits F - K, as Plaintiff's Exhibits 35 - 40

    p. 3231 SATURDAY, 12/15/1923 - 10:00 A.M.
    p. 3231-2 Eriksen: riparian claims in pleadings totalled 21,000 acres? see p. 3289; after testimony, reduced to between 4,000 and 5,000 acres
    p. 3232 Eriksen did a study; "complilations and investigations in reference to what would be the effect upon irrigated farms if those claims for unirrigated lands were substantiated [Morton]"
    p. 3233-6 study based on years 1911 - 1923, 13 years. includes "a number of low water years and a number of high water years."; gauge stations: 1) at the Feed Canal Diverision Dam for 6 years, 2) Paine's Gauging Station just above the mouth of Little Stony for all 13 years; able to back into the Feed Canal numbers, and then the usage in Indian Valley;
    p. 3235 Q. "aggregate of irrigated lands under private ditches along Stony Creek below the Feed Canal Diversion": A. "approximately 2,000 acres down as far as the Orland Project Diversion."
    p. 3235-6 Figures: Natural flow in 1911 at the Feed Canal Diversion or that site, for July, August & September: 
        1911   9,000 a-f
  1912   4,500 a-f
  1913   5,210 a-f
  1914   7,080 a-f
  1915   9,300 a-f
  1916   6,200 a-f 
  1917   6,500 a-f 
  1918   4,300 a-f
  1919   7,730 a-f
  1920   4,070 a-f 
  1921   6,800 a-f
  1922   7,480 a-f
  1923   5,360 a-f
    p. 3236-7 Eriksen: riparian claims of 4,000 acres would need 16,500 a-f for July, August & September, using 5 a-f as the average of Harding's figures; assumes transmission losses down the stream of 10%, based on losses between East Park & Project of 15%
    p. 3239 If water supply had to be spread over the 6000 acres instead of the 2,000, wholesale abandonment of farms would be the result;

    p. 3240 McCutchen on reporter & Master fees $1,750 order; some defendants have droped out, re-apportioned, remaining $1250 projected, pay forthwith: Brown & Albery $125.00; Frank Freeman $300.00; Duard F. Geis $50.00; Hankins & Hankins $200.00; W.E. Johnson $125.00; McCoy & Gans $70.00; R. M. Rankin representing the clients formerly represented by Hon. Claude F. Purkitt $220,00; Thomas Rutledge $70.00; C.L. Witten $20.00; Howard J. Piersol $20.00; H.S. Young $50.00;

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 18 pp 3241 - 3292 [index-3256,3270 -- ]
    Thursday, 01/22/1924
    Friday, 01/23/1924

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants.
    Frank Freeman, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants.

    FOR THE UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen (Recalled) D 3242, 3273, 3288, X 3269

    p. 3241 TUESDAY, 01/22/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    p. 3241 entire morning informal discussions of Frank Freeman cases

    p. 3241 AFTERNOON SESSION - TUESDAY, 01/22/1924 - 1:30 P.M.
    p. 3242 Morton: this plus [vol. 17] Government's case in rebuttal;
    pp. 3242-3256 --
    p. 3243-4 Eriksen's qualifications, Erik Theodore Eriksen, Engineer 34 years, U. of Wisconsin Civil Engineering 1889, some post-graduate, city & railroad engineering, USGS instrument man, Chicago Sanitary District Recorder up to Assistant Engineer, Bates & Rogers Construction Company in Chicago as Superintendent of Construction on bridge substructures, Chicago Sanitary District on overflow and flood conditions in Illinois Valley [years mixed up?], Reclamation Service in Oregon 1910, Assistant Engineer 1911, Engineer 1917, all related to irrigation, gathering data for irrigation rights on Yumatilla River & tributaries [aka Umatilla River] begun by Reclamation, 1910-17, 36,300 acres in project, 30-40,000 acres irrigated outside the project, 600 parties, 293 appeared, MORTON represented the Department of Justice in that suit (State Water Commission of Oregon, appeals to Oregon Supreme Court, and so on) ; surveys for Umatilla West Extension, 30,000 acres of which the first unit of 10,300 has been constructed; topographic surveys for ditch & reservoir location & construction, reconnaisance work for new irrigation projects in California & Oregon, ASCE; to Orland in 1917; first task "survey of Stony Creek and some of the tributaries in order to obtain a map of the irrigated lands in the watershed... in connection with the adjuciation of the water rights on Stony Creek." [well in advance of the drought?]
    p. 3247-8 "survey was to cover all of the irrigated and irrigable area in the valley proper and also on some of the tributaries. The objects were especially to obtain the areas of irrigated land and also the areas under ditch that were irrigable though not irrigated...completed...In 10/1917; that is, as to the valley of Stony Creek itself. I afterwards made some surveys of the tax on the tributaries."; 15 sheets of maps for the entire Stony Creek watershed; "white prints" "sometines called blue line prints"; irrigated in green, other irrigable in yellow
    p. 3248, 3251 Appointed by the Court as Water Commissioner "to see that none of the storage water was used, or that the total diversion by all these ditches was not more than the natural flow."
    p. 3251-2 along conveyance between East Park and Project Diversion, 12 ditches, 5 pumps, 39 defendants in the injunction proceeding; manage rotation when needed (3 years out of six), all without regard to priority
    p. 3252 average 15% conveyance loss between East Park & diversions, 1920 lean year, storage at 20% of regular, 23% loss in conveyance
    p. 3252 East Park to South Diversion Dam 41 miles, to North Dam 46 miles
    p. 3253 losses before appointment as commissioner 20% - 22% vs. 15% normal, savings 5% - 7%; "instructed to make monthly reports to the Court, and I have done so during the time that I had supervision of the diversions, which was during the low water seasons. Q. That Order was verbally altered by Judge Van Fleet to the extent of y our not having them filed every month, but of having them filed at occasional intervals? A. Yes." [where is record of that?] "available to anyone who wanted to look at them, have they not, at your office? A. Yes."

    p. 3253-5 "[Mr. Morton] Q. What did those reports consist of, Mr. Eriksen, in just a brief way; I don't want to go into it in any detail, but just so that the Defendants, in looking at this record, will know what is available there.
    - A. I usually reported on the general conditions as to low water and the necessity of starting the fl ow [sic] of the Reservoir [p. 3253] in the early part of the season and the approximate stage of the Creek, and then I reported my measurements of this natural flow that had been made for the month for which the report had been made, and a tabulation showing the measurements of flow in these various ditches of the Defendants during the month, the total of all these diversions, and showing with that the total natural flow of the Creek, and then I reported the measurements that had been made immediately above the Government diversions and the loss in the Reservoir flow, which I obtained by adding to the Reservoir flow the natural flow of the Creek and subtracting therefrom the various diversions and comparing that with the flow which was measured immediately above the Government diversions, which was less than the computed flow, by the loss; what I mean is that the total flow in the stream was the Reservoir water that had been turned in, plus the natural flow, and then, from this the various diversions of the Defendants were subtracted. Now, if there was no loss in the stream, in the channel, all that water would be found immediately above the Government diversion, but the amount that was found there showed a loss of approximately 15% as an average.
    - Q. You stated a short time that certain general allowances had been made for return flow. That is, generally, I take it, because of excess water supply that got back into the stream again?
    - A. Yes.
    - Q. Tell us just a little about that.
    - A. Well, in the first season that I did that work, in 1918, it was a very low water year, and the natural flow was barely sufficient for the diverions, and I went along the Creek channel to observe what return flow could be seen, that is, the visible return flow, coming in at a few places along the stream, and found that these [p. 3255] totalled about 3 second feet; that was the visible return flow. Besides that, there was an invisible return flow that was seeping in along the channel and this I estimated to probably be about 20% of the amount diverted, so that during that year I made this allowance of 3 second feet of visible return flow and 20% of the diversions as return flow."

    p. 3254 measuring natural flow [did not include the Little Stony Underflow cut off by the construction of East Park]
    p. 3255-6 again introducing the 15 sheets of watershed maps number 1 - 15; "Department of the Interior, United States Reclamation Service, Stony Creek Valley, California, Private Lands under Irrigation from Ditches Taking Water from Stony Creek and Tributaries", received as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 41 for Illustrative Purposes" [MISSING]
    p. 3258 Survey in 1910 [Exhibits 45], checked by reconnoissance [sic] in 1912 [Exhibit 46] , Mr. Reddy [M.E. Ready] , Reclamation Engineer, of upstream irrigated lands ; another reconnoissance in 1906 [which is where?] listing irrigated lands, "think he simply asked the owners how much land they irrigated, and took their figures for it."
    p. 3259 reconnoissance defined
    pp. 3259-60 Eriksen looked over records of Glenn, Colusa, Tehama Counties, made abstracts of Water Location Notices; "went through the records of the land Office in Sacramento, and took dates of entry and usually the date of Patent of all the areas along Stony Creek and its tributaries."; and in various ways kept track of present ownership.
    p. 3260-1 map on easel "Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2" [MISSING] showing present ownership up to date of the map, 10/1922, based in part on reviews of patents, etc., at the Land Office in Sacramento, another version of Exhibit 2, showing patents, Exhibit 2 "made of prints made from those four sheets"?
    p. 3262 Stony Creek from feed canal to diversion, less than 2,000 acres actually irrigated, more than 2,000 under ditch
    p. 3263 land on tributaries (or above the feed canal) aggregate 600 acres including Fouts Springs Company on South Fork Big Stony, Little Stony, Elk Creek, Grindstone, Briscoe Creek, Watson Creek "and North Fork, sometimes called Neuville Fork"; largest 1) Grindstone, 2) Little Stony, 3) North Fork; peak flow on tributaries usually in March; low season 07/01 - 09/15
    p. 3266, 3268 lowest Stony flow near Stonyford 9 cfs 1920 at the Paine ranch just above the mouth of Little Stony
    p. 3267 pleadings, 7,000 riparian acres
    p. 3267 tributaries cease flowing into Stony before they cease flowing further up; Little Stony headwaters, flow lasts throughout the year, but does not reach Stony Creek
    p. 3268 never visited Mr. Silver on Elk Creek, Mr. Garrison maybe on Elk Creek
    p. 3268 Eriksen affirms reasonableness of Mr. Harding's figures;
    p. 3269 Big Stony at feed canal, record low is 20 cfs
    p. 3269 Rankin: tributary flow later in season, Little Stony, Elk, Grindstone, North Fork
    p. 3270 Eriksen re North Fork, "flow of that Fork ceases probably earlier than any other tributary" "very early--I think before the first of June."--
    pp. 3270-71 some irrigation starts before the middle of April, some after, depending on the season
    p. 3271 contrasting Eriksen's maps in Exhibit 41 with 1910 survey maps Exhibt 45
    pp. 3274-75 upstream dams temporary, dirt and logs and brush and gravel, except for 3 or 4 concrete dams out of a dozen, temporaries usually washed out in winter; "all dirt ditches, not lined in any way, and they are ditches in which the loss by leakage is considerable usually by reason of the gravelly nature of the bank." "As compared to ditches that have been puddled, that is, through tight soil or by having been puddled, or as compared to lined ditches, the loss is very great." puddled "is the working up the soil in the bottom in a sort of puddle, so that the silt and sediment which is deposited is worked into the gravel and fills the space between the gravel and makes the ditch tighter. It is really working some dirt in with the gravel. Q. A sort of lining of the ditch, so to speak? A. It might be so considered. It is really working the dirt in with the coarser particles so that the water does not escape. Q. Has this been done with these ditches? A. Not to any extent--not at all." Puddling might cut the losses in half.
    p. 3276 these ditches usually have a spillway to turn unused water "back into the stream or into a channel that leads to the stream."
    p. 3276-7 when not actually irrigating, "turn a portion of the water back and cut down the flow to quite an extent when not irrigating...It goes on down through the ditch and is lost by seepage or some portion of it may go on down through the end of the ditch and escape into the stream again through some slough channel." running water in ditch when not irrigating useful for stock, and "the ditch is in somewhat better condition if it is not allowed to dry up"; "If it dries out, when the flow is resumed there is more percolation down through the bottom of the ditch. That water that has dried out has to be replaced and it takes longer to get the water through for irrigation; it tends to delay the process of irrigation when it is resumed." Continuous-running practice may deprive downstream of water.
    p. 3278 "Seepage and evaporation and into the growth of dense vegetation, that is, along the ditches and along the slough." "willows and brush and tules and water grass and such vegetation as grows in very wet places"
    p. 3279 one cfs under six inch pressure is 40 miner's inches; one miner's inch of water, to about 16,000 gpd.
    p. 3279-80 most ditches running 1 cfs when not irrigating, enough to water 3,000 cattle at 5 gallons per day; even the largest ranches have only a few hundred head; stock use is inappreciable, but a large head is needed just to get the water through the ditch to them; where the stock can get to the stream, these ditch runs are a waste of water
    p. 3281-2 water Commissioner administration has saved approximately 6% except in 1920 when flows were very small and loss proportionately larger; "average loss in 1920 was 23 per cent and a fraction...8% of the average of all years....that was the loss in stored water" [?]
    p. 3282 5-year average savings by Water Commissioner to Project 3,000 a-f/year
    pp. 3282-4 a number of sloughs between the Feed Canal Diversion and the Project diversions, "sloughs running through the bottom lands...channels that probably were made by flood water in high stages of the stream, as the water covered the bottoms and flowed through the bottoms and actually cut channels. [p. 3283] These channels are usually from 10 to 50 feet wide and they are covered with or usually filled with vegetation, at least on the banks, of willows and brush and some tules and they carry water...water grass. They usually have considerable water in the bottom that is kept up and fed by this excess flow that comes from the ditches and this flow is very slow, usually almost stagnant and finally at the lower end of the slough the channel may or may not connect with the stream again and some water--if it connects with the stream--returns to the stream slowly in a sluggish current...goes very slowly and there is considerable evaporation, and it is taken up by this dense vegetation...there is quite a large area, taken altogether...sloughs may be considered as beneficial to the farmer, as being part of their pasture land, with this vegetation growing in there. It may be considered beneficial in that way, as furnishing some pasture in the drier part of the season, but the amount of water that it takes to keep up this vegetation is, I think, far out of proportion to the benefit received...[p. 3284] does no compare with the value of crops...real remedy of course would be to fill up all of these sloughs and seed them to alfalfa, the same as the other parts of the field...it is feasible, but whether or not it would pay in all cases, I couldn't say. It would certainly be a great saving of water and give a larger return in crops." an aggravated use? "If a very small amount of water was allowed to go in...the vegetation would die...the willows and the brush. I might say that I noticed a case of that in 1920, when one ditch was not used during a large part of the season and the brush that grew alogn the sloughs and part of the ground that was kept wet when the ditch was running had died out during the season. This tends to show that water that stood in the sloughs--that excess water that went over the surface--was necessary for the growth of this vegetation." losses by evaporation "...are more, probably, along the edge of the slough, and would be still greater except for the shade that is afforded by this vegetation that grows. I think that when the water is spread over the surface of the ground, there is more evaporation there than there is in the sloughs, for the reason that the sloughs are shaded by this vegetation...loss from the sloughs would be greater [than from the irrigated ground], because it is continual." & greater transpiration losses. [uh, wetlands?]

    p. 3285-6 transpiration "is the moisture that is passing out of and off the growing plant. [p. 3286]
    - Q. It is there, is it not, where the main consumption of irrigation occurs?
    - A. Yes, a certain part of the water that is taken up by the plant is used by the building up of the plant, and another portion is transpired.
    - Q. Is it the solids inthe [sic] water that are used in building the plant, or is it that and some of the water also?
    - A. It is that and some of the water also.
    - Q. Is there, or is there not, a very large transpiration from the plant?
    - A. Yes, there is; it is going on constantly and amounts to quite a large amount of moisture.
    - Q. Then, for non-productive plants, is this transpiration a straight loss, or not?
    - A. It is a straight loss so far as any productive use of the water is concerned. It is going on constantly and uses part of this excess water that is diverted." [Hmm, USA takes water from upstream wetlands as an unproductive use, diverts that water at T-C Canal & previously GCID the crossing, and delivers that water to the SNWR wetlands as a productive use? In the drafting of the Decree, nobody spoke for the wetlands.]

    p. 3286-7 half second foot per day yields one acre foot in 24 hours or 43,560 cubic feet of water, equal to 326,000 gallons figuring 7-1/2 gallons to a cubic foot; at 10 gallons for every head of cattle, would water about 32,000 head
    p. 3286 not more than 5,000 head of cattle dependent on Stony Creek

    p. 3288-9, 90, 92 Government's Exhibit 42 [MISSING], "an illustrative outline of the testimony adduced in that regard"; vertical columns , headings 1911 - 1923, height of column represents graphically the total water requirement for 2,000 irrigable acres + 4,000 riparian acres between feed canal & Diversions, total of red & yellow portions; yellow portion as percentage "flow of water that would have been available in the year for the irrigation of these 6,000 acres" with the red being the shortage; diagram covers peak season 07/01 - 09/15
    p. 3289-90 21,000 claimed riparian acres included "lower riparian lands" below the Project and on tributaries, 7,000 between feed canal & diversion dams, 4,000 his estimate of eventual claims
    p. 3291 35% average of 6,000 acre requirements (based on Mr. Harding's reasonable use figures), dotted line across the exhibit; lowest years, 24.6%; development of those riparian lands would make [appropriation] farming unprofitable; 4 years out of 13 24.6%, 5 years 25.5%, 8 years 29.3%; from measurements by him, or before him "measurements made in the usual course of employment and business by officials of the Reclamation Service....A. Yes, the notes were found in the records....""

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 19 pp 3293 - 3518 [ index-3293,3425 -- ]
    Tuesday, 02/19/1924
    Wednesday, 02/20/1924
    Thursday, 02/21/1924
    Monday, 02/25/1924
    Tuesday, 02/26/1924
    Wednesday, 02/27/1924

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants.

    FOR THE UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen
    Case of Defendant BAYLEY D 3293 & 3305-15, X 3298, RD 3301
    " GOLLNICK D 3304 & 3315, X 3309 & 3311, RD 3310 & 3312
    " TROXEL D 3312
    " MULFORD D 3316, X 3331
    " TRUE D 3356, X 3361, RD 3362, RX 3363
    " SOETH D 3363, X 3368
    " HARMON D 3370, X 3375
    " RIDLEY D 3376, X 3379, D 3380
    " LUCAS D 3380
    " STUDYBAKER D 3383
    " GREEN (Carl A.) D 3388, X 3390
    " GREEN (S.N.) D 3391, X 3394, RD 3395
    " PROVENCE D 3397
    " KNIGHT D 3400
    " WAKEFIELD D 3410
    " MANN D 3410, X 3425
    " PAINE D 3426 & 3434
    " STITES D 3439, X 3444
    " O'LEARY D 3445, X 3451, RD 3451, RX 3452
    " HUNTER D 3453
    " HUNTER D 3467
    " SALE D 3477, X 3478
    " LEWIS D 3479, X 3491, RD 3494
    " GATLIFF D 3495, X 3500
    " WELTON D 3500 , X 3504, RD 3505
    " BROWN D 3506 & 3508, X 3507

    CASE OF DEFENDANTS CHARLES L. SIMPSON and ZIBA E. SIMPSON:

    Witnesses called:
    Charles L. Simpson D 3468, X 3472

    CASE OF DEFENDANTS SUTLIFF and LAURA BELL GRIFFITH:

    Witnesses called:
    Bruce H. Sutliff D 3335, X 3339
    A.T. Welton D 3457, X 3459, RD 3461, RX 3461
    J.W. Millsaps D 3463, X 3465

    p. 3293 TUESDAY, 02/19/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    pp. 3294-304, 3315-6 Eriksen, BAYLEY ; map sheet 5 [maps MISSING]; 1917 22.2 acres irrigated, 2.8 additional irrigable; 12/01/1923 25 acres irrigated, ditch at south line of S24 [s/b S34]; "ditch goes down through S34 and into S27 "along west side of Bayley place, or the Forty where the irrigated land is" S 1/2 of SW 1/4 of S27; westerly side of irrigated is an "Orchard and Garden" patch, east boundary is the Creek, a line of brush & floods at high water; land to the west of irrigated is "high land--hilly land ; concrete wing dam; one mile ditch, 2 flumes, 50' each, lower across Nelson Creek; ditch also serves Gollnick, passes through True; harding figures: 4 a-f 30% conveyance = 5.7 a-f/acre at diversion, 143 a-f total, 1.4 a-f/month per acre, .58 s-f, 1/43rd s-f/acre; max 1917 22.2 acres, .52 s-f; 1911 & 1912 surveys 23.4 acres; 1906 survey 15 acres; no sloughs; maybe 4 more acres on Rankin cross
    p. 3298, 3300-02 Engineer M.E. Ready Survey 1911; Engineer S.G. Bennett Survey 1906, surveys "found" by Eriksen; Rankin objects to Morton's effort to dress up the reliability of the previous surveys, sustained but records themselves allowed
    pp. 3303 old White ditch;; Bayley ditch "generally turned back into Nelson Creek", water running in ditch all season for stock;
    pp. 3303-4 here & there in the transcripts, discussion of how access to the creek by livestock makes running water in ditches for stock unnecessary [of course, nowadays, stock generally has to be kept out of the creek to comply with SWRCB rules, etc.; in this fashion, the entirety of the Angle Decree as to stock watering has fallen into conflict with California environemental enforcement, and maybe Federal as well]
    pp. 3304-3312, 3315-6 A.M. GOLLNICK, map sheet 5; at times Gollnick has pumped water but in general depends on Bayley ditch, aka Saunders ditch [Saunders previous owners of Gollnick place]; 15.7 acres irrigated, 31.2 acres under ditch; brush in southerly half of Gollnick place between irrigated area and the stream subject to flooding , gravel between northerly portion and the stream also overflow land; Harding: 5 a-f delivered, 30% conveyance, 6.3 a-f diverted, 1/38 s-f/acre totals .41 for 15.7 a, with a larger head by rotation; many sloughs, one is 1-mile long, sloughs average 10-12 feet, water grass, tules, brush, almost stagnant; question of whether or not True uses Bayley ditch; 6-1/4 acres of Gollnick is above White ditch; no way to keep water out of the slough, all Gollnick sloughs empty into the Creek; Alvin M. Gollnick is A.M. Gollnick; alfalfa & garden; pump in SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S27 used in 1 or 2 years to pump from the slough, thinks it was in '21 & '20 or '19 & '20; cannot say all Gollnick fields abut the Creek; more Harding 99 a-f at 6.3 diversin;
    p. 3305, 3308 Old White Ditch
    p. 3310 Morton advocates filling the sloughs (wetlands?) to save irrigation water?
    pp. 3312-6 FRANK W. TROXEL lands & ditch, map sheet 3; POD NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S16 concrete dam/concrete headgate, spillway above the headgate & at the upper end of POU fields with wooden gate into Briscoe, POU SW 1/4 S9 & small part in SE 1/4 S9; stock could drink from the stream; Harding figures, 3-12 a-f/acre, 4.7 diversion, 25% loss, max .43 s-f, 1.2 a-f in max month on 22.1 acres, larger head by rotation, total 202 a-f/season [doesn't compute], alfalfa & garden;
    pp. 3315 BAYLEY Harding 143 a-f total;
    pp. 3316-7 P.K. MULFORD, map sheet 3. POU SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S16 T20N R6W; H.C. ANGLE place is between the Creek & the Mulford place; Mulford west side of Briscoe, from TROXEL ditch, 1 acre of their 4, other 3 bench land 10-15 feet up from the garden land;
    pp. 3317-33 JOHN O. JOHANSEN, Map sheet 6 west side, 7 east side East, 5.2 a irrigated 1919, 21, & 22; headworks temporary every year; orchard not irrigated, trees partly dead, neglected, above the ditch; acre alfalfa not irrigated, to quite an extent died out; rest of land pasture, remnants of alfalfa with other grass grown in; Johansen Ditch #1 or Johansen East Side ditch, Harding: 4 a-f/acre, 15% loss, 4.7 a-f at POD, max month POD 1.2 af/acre, 1 s-f/51 acres, max total .10 s-f for 5 acres, season total 24, in SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S15 & NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 T19N R6W; Johansens ditch #2/Johansen's East [?] Side Ditch, POD sheet 7, POU sheet 6, island in S15, "upstream end of that island Mr. Johansen has a concrete dam across the east channel which throws water into the west channel, the water passing down this west channel of the Creek about" 3/4 mile to West Side Ditch, #2, opposite the lower end of the island, a temporary dam of dirt, gravel, logs & brush, ditch thence 1-1/4 miles through S10 to S3 to POU of 38.1 acres of 68 acres under the ditch or is it 61-1/2 acres [?], thence to TRUE land; small area SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Orchard, not irrigated, near to the creek, enough moisure for the trees; irrigated alfalfa, 3-4 acres of corn, surrounding the house another orchard; Harding: 4 a-f/acre POU entire, Johansen 3.5 a-f/acre & 4-1/2 a-f POD w/1.5 a-f month max use (or 1.05?), 25% conveyance, less for Johansen, more for True, 1.18 s-f max or 1/58 of a s-f per acre; actually irrigated 1917 .66 s-f, 162 a-f, green area * 4-1/2 a-f/acre, or for all, 1.18 cfs for 68.1 acres, 289 a-f for season; one slough a half mile long, 20 feet wide at lower end, heavy vegetation, brush, willows, some water grasses; stock have access to creek, slough fed by turnout from flume a mile down from head when not irrigating, by irrigation & backing up at lower end from the creek; 3 miles of ditch altogether to return to the creek, at True "That small head loses itself and seeps into the ground or evaporates"; Rankin Cross: east side irrigable 5.2 plus 3.2 for 8.4 irrigable, west side 68.1, change: stock access to the creek in only some fields; field along the creek covered with brush; slough water healthy to drink

    p. 3334 WEDNESDAY, 02/20/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    pp. 3334-5 Attorney Richard Belcher, Marysville, for the Sutliff family, including Laura Bell Griffith; asking to present testimony to support pleadings not yet filed but for which they had "never desired or been willing to waive any rights, nor did they understand that they were waiving any rights"; Morton says OK as long as in support of a right of appropriation; Belcher, "will limit it to the appropriation."
    p. 3335 BRUCE H. SUTLIFF for himself and ESTATE OF EMILY A. SUTLIFF, ELLIE A. SUTLIFF, GEORGE WILLIAM SUTLIFF and LAURA BELL GRIFFITH
    p. 3337 Brother of G.W. LOUIS SUTLIFF, & LAURA BELL GRIFFITH; NW 1/4 S29, all S30 T18N R6W, irrigated 250-300 acres, all of NW 1/4 S29 except the swale or low spot irrigated but not planted & another "Slough & Willow Brush" irrigated but not cultivated, & portion of E 1/2 S30; sheet 11; all of NE 1/4 S30; green portion SE 1/4 S30; small piece NW 1/4 S30;
    p. 3337 Appropriation, Henry Burgett, 06/10/1885; to Sutliffs purchased 1911; since 1915 rented out, some years only partial irrigation; POD a bit of west line & south of south line of S30, but within SW 1/4 S30 [?]
    p. 3338-A Burgett appropriation entered as if read, ditch & flume
    p. 3340 not much of a dam, but tenants alowed freshed to silt in the intake and then built up a rock dam 2-2.5 feet high to compensate, but he then cleaned out the ditch so no dam needed; gate 200' from intake, spillway right above the gate, run all the time for stock; unused stock water runs into the slough & thence to Brown
    p. 3344 the frost killed the alfalfa 1912; sold part of NW 1/4 S29 to J. SALISBURY and then repurchased
    p. 3346-54 A.L. MARTINELLI AND SON, tenants to 03/1921, didn't irrigate adequately; Morton hammering on him p. 3339 on
    p. 3347 NE corner of NW quarter of 29 T18N R6W, seepage, irrigates itself
    p. 3349 center of NW quarter watered by seepage from upper levels?
    p. 3354 agrees that 220 acres would be about right, but Eriksen said 169 acres when rented out but 220 after Sutliff took it back

    p. 3356 THURSDAY, 02/21/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    pp. 3356-63 I.E. TRUE, JOHANSEN Ditch, sheet 5, ditch sheet 6 & 7 ; 2 miles POD to True; 71.2 acres irrigated, 5.4 additional irrigable, alfalfa, some portion of unirrigated was irrigated by runoff from irrigated; BAYLEY Ditch goes over land between irrigated land and the creek, that part covered with scattered brush, uneven surface, more or less gravel, "is overflowed & washed in high floods", that part 50-60 acres; 8-10' wide 3/4 mile slough between irrigated and that brushy border; not used by irrigation is used for stock or seeps & evaporates, 1 to 1.5 second feet; some stock access to creek; always water in the slough, willows, tules, water grass, but produces feed; Harding figures: 4-1/2 a-f POU, 6.1 a-f POD per season, 25% loss, 1.5 a-f/acre max:month, 434 a-f season total, 1.93 s-f max month, twice that would be an adequate head, by altenating with Johansen, porous soil;
    pp. 3363-69 JOHN H. SOETH & ditch sheets 7 & 8, POD SW 1/4 S26 East bank 1/4 mile north of S. line S26 T19N R6W, 3/8 mile to first POU at SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S26, 2nd in NW 1/4 NW 1/4 & [3rd?] NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S27, thence to [4th?] SE 1/4 SE 1/4 (& NE 1/4 SE 1/4) S22 & a bit of SW 1/4 S23 alfalfa, a little orchard, 28 a irrigated, 14.2 irrigable, Harding: 4 af/acre loss 20% = 5 a-f/acre POD, 1.25 a-f max, .57 s-f or 1/49 s-f per acre; irrrigated .58 s-f , season total 140 a-f, total for max month 1-1/4 a-f, or .57 s-f; half mile of slough, SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S26 into S27, willows & water grass, in places 50' wide, ditch for part of its length is the slough;

    p. 3370 MONDAY, 02/25/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    pp. 3370-5 JAMES HARMON sheet 8 & ditch sheet 9; NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S11 T18N R6W, right side of stream, through S2 into S35 & S34 T19N R6W, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S34 to NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S34; 1) W 1/2 NW 1/4 S2, 2) NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 S3, 3) SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S34, 4) SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S35, 5) E 1/2 SE 1/4 S34, plus under ditch 6) SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S34, 7) NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S34; irrigated 35.6 acres, under but not irrigated 7 acres, alfalfa, small orchard, garden;
    p. 3373 temporary dam of logs and boards and timbers, removed in fall and replaced in spring to save the boards and timber [are they the only one to clean out their dam at season end?], ditch in very good condition, cleaned out at beginning of each season, gets somewhat clogged by end of season, would be better if more cleaning (once in the middle of the season) or if lined with concrete. 1 s-f plus or minus for stock when not irrigating, stock could use the creek, excess to seepage or evaporation; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f/acre or 4.7 at POD 25% conveyance, 1/51st s-f/acre, 1.2 a-f max month, 4.7 af/acre and 167 total a-f diversion; max cfs .71, larger if rotated;

    pp. 3376-80, 3382 C.H. RIDLEY not on his map, on government Exibit 2 map [MISSING]; S 1/2 NE 1/4 S23 plus small portion NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S23, & NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S23, & SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S24 T20N R7W; substituted for original party J.F. TAYLOR, South Fork Elk Creek; POD maybe SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S23 [Diamond M?]; 3/4 to 1 mile from POD, 57.6 acres irrigated, 3.5 irrigable; alfalfa, 5-10 acres almonds, small vinyard, small ditch in good condition; S. Fork "ceases along about the first of July"; Harding "in a general way he classed all these places on the tributaries as requiring about 5 acre feet per acre at the land, and assuming as a general figure a conveyance loss of 25% that would mean a diversion of 6-1/4 acre feet per acre" ; max month 1.55 a-f/acre, 1/39th sf/acre; 120 a-f per season - but 89 a-f maximum month, 120 "must have been a mistake"; 57.6 acres on the place, 6-1/4 a-f per acre yields 360 a-f per season, 1.48 cfs, no sloughs or practically none; 3.3 additional irrigable; Ditch a little smaller than 2 s-f
    p. 3378 others on S. Fork, PROVENCE place, S.N. GREEN place, GARRISON place
    pp. 3380 MINNIE L. SADLER had previously testified about the condition of the RIDLEY place;
    pp. 3380-3 ELLA LUCAS and ditch, H.A. BUTLER had testified about her place, NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S30 T20N R6W & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S31, Briscoe Creek; flow is exhausted by 07/01, heavy flow early in season, quarter of a mile ditch in good condition & may be in NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S31, 7 acres irrigated, 1.4 irrigable, alfalfa, riparian, may water stock from the creek; temporary dam each spring with dirt & gravel; Harding: same general tributary use, 5 a-f/acre at the land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion; 1.55 a-f/acre max month, 1/39 cfs/acre, 44 a-f at diversion season total, 11 a-f max month, .18 cfs max month; a small ditch, approximately 2 s-f, a little larger than RIDLEY ditch; rotation advisable
    p. 3383 Also on Briscoe, CARL GREEN place, JOHN STITES place
    pp. 3383 C.E. STUDYBAKER, Mad Creek, tributary of Briscoe; NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S35 T20N R7W, above CARL GREEN place [answer could be overly simplistic]; 15 acres irrigated, 2.3 more under the ditch, POD may be SE 1/4 S35, 1/2 mile ditch; alfalfa; Harding: general for tributary, 5 a-f at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at POD, max diversion 1.55 a-f/acre, 1/39th s-f, season total 94 a-f, max month 23-1/4 a-f;
    pp. 3384-8 Mad usually exhausted by 07/01, Elk, Briscoe & Mad usually begin mid-April, sometimes later, or earlier if a dry spring, extends to 07/01, about 2-1/2 months, might irrigate in fall to wet up the land, for pasture, flow usually by 10/01 on average, usable for irrigation by 11/01, most don't bother with fall; Morton: if season usually ends 07/01, aren't Harding total figures wrong? Eriksen: "figures are for a reasonable water requirement--the land requires this water but you can't get it"; once every 10-15 years water available throughout the summer

    pp. 3384, 3388-90 CARL A. GREEN, Briscoe Creek, SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S21 & NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S20 T20N R6W, small ditch 1/4 mile good condition from Briscoe maybe SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S20, 14.5 irrigated & 9.2 more irrigable which may have been irrigated at one time, alfalfa, 3 crops on these tributary places, sometimes only 2; Harding: usual tributary figures, 5 a-f at land, 6-1/4 at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max, 1/39th s-f/acre max month, 91 a-f & .36 s-f from the ditch max, rotation to provide more;
    pp. 3391-6 S.N. GREEN NW 1/4 NE 1/4 & NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S18 T20N R6W South Fork Elk Creek maybe temporary diversions, 1-mile ditch 3 s-f also irrigates PROVENCE lands higher up the ditch; 17.9 acres, alfalfa, no sloughs, on these tributaries thinks smaller amount of water run in the ditches when it is available (stock, etc.), some cases evaporates and seeps if not used, all these farmers have stock; Harding: [tributary figures] 5 a-f/acre at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at POD, 1.55 a-f/acre at POD max month, 1/39th s-f max month, 110 a-f season, .44 s-f max, 27-1/2 a-f max, available only part of the season, rotation useful;
    p. 3393 PROVENCE place, C.H. RIDLEY place, GARRISON place; 2 ditches on Elk Creek itself but owners have not appeared, Morton suggests he go check in the spring on those 2 ditches;
    p. 3394-5,6 Rankin on S.N. GREEN, .44 sufficient to "wet the land"? No, not an economical use of the water, need a bigger head. Rankin: "As a general rule, on all of these places, with their more or less porour [sic] soil, it would be an economical use of the water to confine the water user to the figures given by Mr. Harding for the maximum flow for the use of water? A. That is true." [confine = irrigate with the max?]; seepage finds its way back to the stream; Morton, rotation accomplishes the needed head.
    p. 3395 RIDLEY land, FORMAN land, part slopes away from stream so excess is lost? [there are no landlocked sumps, so it always returns to some stream]

    p. 3397 MONDAY, 02/25/1924 - 1:30 P.M.
    p. 3397-9 HARVEY E. PROVENCE, SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S18 T20N R6W & SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S13 T20N R7W; South Fork Elk Creek, above GREEN on ditch; 28 irrigated 3.3 irrigable, SE 1/4 S13 traversed by the stream, others not; alfalfa, some grain; Harding: same trib figures, 5 a-f/acre at the land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at POD, 1.55 a-f/acre max month, 1/39th s-f/acre; 175 a-f/season, .70 s-f diversion max month, .44 a-f max month; flow usually ceases about 07/01
    pp. 3400-10 J.E. KNIGHT, map sheet 7; W 1/2 SE 1/4 & W 1/2 NE 1/4 S 15 T19N R6W, 48.3 acres irrigated, 6.8 acres irrigable; Knight ditch POD SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S22 same T & R from a concrete wing dam & concrete headgate, spillway half mile below headgate SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S15 same T & R back into the Creek, small head run when not irrigating 1 s-f, ditch 3-4 inches deep, used for stock and rest seeps or evaporates, a mile in aggregate of sloughs average 10' wide at water surface, water grass, willow, brush, connected with ditch through laterals; lateral in NW 1/4 S 1/4 S15 flows into a slough, another in same subdivision crosses another branch of the slough; sloughs not used on this ranch to convey water; at lower ends, back-water from creek, else from ditch or natural drainage; mid-stream island, island or peninsula between creek & slough, both rocky & not fit for cultivation; Harding: 4 a-f/acre at land, 25% conveyance, 5 a-f/acre at POD, 1.3 a-f/acre max month, 1/46th s-f/acre max diversion, 256 a-f/season max diversion 1.05 s-f, 64 a-f diversion max month, head of 2-3 times that by rotation desirable; between Knight POD & spillway is JOHANSEN west side POD, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S15, KNIGHT reduces JOHANSEN supply "but practically it has never affected the JOHANSEN diversion."
    pp. 3402-3 spillways, GATLIFF, GOLLNICK, BAYLEY, JOHANSEN, TROXEL, MULFORD
    pp. 3404-5 laterals to sloughs, then wasted?
    pp. 3408-10 J.E. Knight riparian claim E 1/2 of NE 1/4 S11 T20N R7W, on Bowman Creek tributary to North Fork Elk Creek, assume flow ceases by 07/01; also NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 S12, NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 ? NW 1/4 of S13 traversed a short distance by North Fork Elk Creek & Crossed by Bowman Creek; N 1/2 of SW 1/4 S12 not touched by North Fork but traversed by a tributary name unknown to him; of the NW 1/4 only the NE 1/4 traversed by Elk Creek; "response to evidence introduced under Rule 46 by the defendant", may have further questions later

    pp. 3410-20 A.T. WAKEFIELD ditch aka Wakefield & Whalley ditch, sheet 9; POD NW 1/4 SE 1/4 S10 T18N R6W, right side of Stony Creek, through N 1/2 SE 1/4 S10 & corner of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S11 [or is that changed to NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S11?] into NW 1/4 S11 to NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S11; temporary dam renewed each year; POU in each 40 of NW 1/4 S11, 53.8 acres irrigated, & 2-3, remeasured, change to 2.3 acres in W part NW 1/4 S11 by Mr. HINELINE; & 8, remeasured, change to 6 Wakefield acres irrigable; [some? irrigated by HINELINE but owned by WAKEFIELD?]; water right documentation for WAKEFIELD not found; 1/2 mile of sloughs altogether, traversed partly by a ditch used as a lateral, slough about 10 feet wide at water surfacea, heavy brush, water grass & tules, watered by the ditch, maybe a little back up from the Creek; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f POU, 4.1 a-f at POD, 1 a-f/acre month max use, diversion 1/60th s-f/acre, season diversion 221 a-f for 53.8 acres irrigated, max diversion .91 s-f, 55 a-f max month; larger head desirable, by rotation
    pp. 3412-9 HINELINE place, HINELINE ditch aka Rockville ditch; [is that 8 acres?] Harding: 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f POD, 1.55 a-f/acre max month diversion, 1/29th s-f/acre, 55 a-f total, .23 s-f max diversion; HINELINE field owned by WAKEFIELD, 2.6 acres, season total 16 a-f, .07 s-f max diversion; 4 a-f max month, but probably irrigated along with the HINELINE field; "spillway at the flume on the south side of the irrigated field" into Montgomery Creek, spillway 1/2 to 3/4 mile from headgate, small head beginning at the spillway run when not irrigating, partly stock, partly evaporates; between WAKEFIELD head & spillway is HINELINE diversion; fenced public road runs between HINELINE and the Creek; stock drink from the ditch; when irrigating excess runs through a ditch back into the creek [?]
    p. 3419 [? Hineline field on west side of the creek?]
    p. 3415 Grapevine School

    p. 3420-5 L.E. MANN, 25 acres Salt Creek near Elk Creek, flow to 07/01; shown on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 [MISSING], S36 T21N R7W, alfalfa; small tract below owned by Mr. E.B. MANN, 5 acres irrigated; Salt into Stony near center S34 T21N R6W; Harding: usual tributary, 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f/acre POD, 1.55 a-f/acree max month which is 1/39th sf/acre; season total 156 a-f, 39 a-f max month, .64 s-f max month; larger head desirable, by rotation (but on Salt Creek nobody to rotate with? so,)
    p. 3423-5 Morton on rotation between small irrigators & the Project?
    p. 3425 Salt Creek may flow through the season once every 12 years
    p. 3425 Rankin: government lands? what government lands? "A. The Orland Project." Morton backpedals, "land under the Government Project." --
    pp. 3426-39 S.F. PAINE, S9 & S10 T18N R6W, irrigated in S 1/2 SE 1/4 of S9 , plus a small portion in NE 1/4 SE 1/4 & SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S10 T18N R6W map sheet 9, 25.2 acres, plus 45.4 irrigable SW 1/4 SE 1/4 & NE 1/4 SE 1/4 & NW 1/4 SE 1/4 [& SE 1/4 SE 1/4] S9 & thus a portion in every 40 of SE 1/4, has been in alfalfa, shows presence of alkalai by Salt Grass mixed in, alfalfa mostly run out, most under a ditch diverting from a Stony tributary with insufficient water, but 2-3 acres under PAINE (Stony) ditch; tributary ditch & flume in a bad state of repair in 1917; Stony diversion NW 1/4 S16 into S9 & 10; alfalfa, garden, stubble; ditch 1/2 mile to POU, POD temporary dam, ditch in good condition; half mile of slough, max 20' wide rest 10' wide, water grass, water cress, tules, brush, fed from the ditch and [spring water from] the hills; return water in part through the slough or evaporates or seeps; PAINE uses a smaller flow but seems to make it work; Harding: 4 a-f/acre & 4.5 a-f/acre at POD, 1.1 a-f/acre diversion max month, is 1/55 a s-f/acre, season total 113 a-f; max month 28 a-f, .46 s-f max month, for the 25.2 acres;

    p. 3434 TUESDAY, 02/26/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    p. 3434-5 PAINE, if 27 acres not 25.2, Harding: season 122 a-f, diversion max month .50 s-f & 31 a-f, larger is better and "secured by rotating";
    pp. 3436-9 PAINE, "plan to [re-?]develop the waters of Salt Creek for 13 acres of the non-Stony ditch irrigable [Salt Spring Valley Creek?] , POD NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 S16, to SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S9, old ditch not used in some time and old flume fallen down, dam in Salt creek washed out; Harding: 13 acres 59 a-f, month max use 15 a-f & .24 s-f diversion, increased by rotation with Stony users; flow ceases after 07/01 , but "there is a good deal of waste water comes into this part of Salt Creek from the lands above on the BROWN ranch, so that there is some water here for irrigation from that source after" 07/01; limiting BROWN place to Harding figures would reduce but not eliminate BROWN runoff into Salt Creek
    pp. 3439-45 W.H. STITES ditch, was H.R. Stewart, was Thomas Fairlee sheet 12; NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S31 T18N R6W & NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S31; irrigated westerly field contiguous to Stony but easterly field not?; ditch from north bank of south channel near center SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S36 T18N R7W thence northerly across north channel by flume & NE 1/4 mile to first irrigated field in NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S31 thence easterly dividing into laterals and ending at NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S31; 16 acres, no additional, no sloughs, temporary dam washed out each year, flume in good condition, no ditch spillway, small head when not irrigating, don't know how excess is turned back to the stream, maybe stock, small head even when irrigating, some water from LEWIS ditch to easterly field and no longer use STITES ditch beyond westerly field, LEWIS ditch diverts above STITES ditch - water taken from LEWIS flume [?] in NW portion of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of S31 & dropped down into STITES ditch thence to easterly field; LEWIS diversion 3/4 mile above STITES diversion; thinks the arrangement is temporary; Harding: 4 a-f/acre 15% conveyance 4.7 a-f/acre diverted, 1.2 a-f in max month at 1/51st s-f/acre, total 16 acres, 75 a-f season diverted, 19 a-f or .31 s-f max month, BR>
    pp. 3445-53 Mrs. MARY O'LEARY, map sheet 10, NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S20, NW 1/4 & SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S17 T18N R6W, BROWN ditch & wastewater from LEWIS ditch; from BROWN: easterly part of NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S20 & all of that in the other 2 Forties, 11.7 acres; from LEWIS waste, 11 [changed to 16] acres in westerly portion of NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S20, total 22.7 [changed to 27.7] acres, portion from LEWIS waste not always had sufficient water; "The waste water from the Lewis ditch comes from the Lewis ranch in a northeasterly direction through a natural channel on the land, probably made by drainage water coming in that direction; at least it is a natural channel and not a ditch that has been dug--and comes to the sourhwest corner of the irrigated tract...that is irrigated with that water is described as the westerly portion of the" NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S2 [sic, S20?] "and then it is distributed over that field by laterals." no dam, "directly connected with the lateral, and the water flows directly into the lateral from the channel." No headgate; both waste from LEWIS lands and flow from the ditch; don't know if there is some agreement with LEWIS; other, 11 acre portion: main BROWN ditch is constructed across a portion of the O'LEARY land in NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S20, water taken directly out of that ditch, plus a lateral from BROWN ditch that supplies more of the O'LEARY land that is above the main ditch. "irrigated land in the two Forties that were mentioned in" S17 "get water from another branch of the BROWN ditch...."; BROWN diverts from Big Stony one mile up from O'LEARY, other BRANCH ditch [BROWN ditch?] 2 miles up; understand some arrangement for O'LEARY for the BROWN ditch but unsure of its nature; LEWIS diversion 3-1/2 miles above O'LEARY, 1/4 mile LEWIS lands to O'LEARY lands but along the ditch 1/2 mile; O'LEARY next to the road; Harding: 3.5 a-f/acre, 5 a-f at the diversion, 1.25 a-f or 1/49 s-f/acre max month, 30% conveyance, season 138 a-f, 35 a-f max month at .56 s-f, could reduce by rotation with BROWN but LEWIS is more difficult although steady supply from LEWIS ditch could be arranged; no sloughs, not near Stony, abuts Dry Creek which runs very small flow to 07/01 and not used by O'LEARY; Lewis lands have a considerable slope or fall towards O'LEARY

    [A SHOWING waste & runoff is already included in the Project 4.05 a-f/acre figures: ]

    pp. 3451-3453 [CROSS EXAMINATION, MR. RANKIN] "...Q. And there is necessarily always some waste or seepage of water from the Lewis land?
    A. I would say nearly always there would be some seepage.
    Q. It is a fact that with porous land having considerable slope, like the Lewis land, in carrying on irrigation of the [p. 3451] land in an efficient manner there is some waste or seepage from the land to the lower land?
    A. Yes, that is nearly always the case.
    Q. That condition is true of a part of the Orland Project, as well as the Stony Creek land?
    A. Yes, it is true of almost any irrigated area. It is impossible to put on for irrigation just the exact amount of water that the plants use.
    Q. It is a fact that on the south edge of the Orland Project there is considerable excess water and the ranches adjoining the Project on the south use that water, such as the Frank House Place?
    A. Yes, that is true.
    MR. RANKIN: That is all.
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION

    MR. MORTON: Q. When the proper amount of water is applied to the land, for purposes of illustration--the amount, we will say, commensurate with the Harding figures--the amount of run-off from the lands is inconsiderable compared to the circumstances where a larger amount of water is put upon the land?
    A. Yes, the run-off would be smaller and it would be at the minimum for effective irrigation.
    MR. MORTON: That is all, Mr. Ericksen.
    RECROSS EXAMINATION

    MR. RANKIN: Q. Is the run-off or waste water from the Stony Creek lands generally, along Stony Creek--the lands which are irrigated--greater or less than the run-off or waste water from the southern portion of the Orland project?
    A. I couldn't say, for the reason that I know very little of what the run-off from the southern portion of the Orland Project is. [Reclamation employee & Water Commissioner at this time, Water Master in 1930] [p. 3453]
    Q. You haven't kept track of that?
    A. No.
    MR. RANKIN: That is all."

    pp. 3453-6 EDGAR HUNTER, sheet 1 (tr 3453 error, s/b 21 N, not 20 N), SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 & SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 T20N R6W, ditch with J.T. Edwards from Grindstone South bank at West Line of S15, temporary diversion gravel & dirt from bottom of creak heaped up, wooden or timber headgate, spillway 1/8th mile from headgate & from end of ditch into Stony, very good ditch; 8.9 acres irrigated alfalfa & a small garden; when not irrigating head reduced to 1 s-f, some used by stock on EDWARDS, none on HUNTER, rotation between EDWARDS & HUNTER; Grindstone flows until 08/01 [in 2010 some flow until day before first fall rain in October]; "in occasional years the flow would last during the whole season"; Harding: usual tributary, 5 a-f/acre & 6-1/4 diverted, 1.55 a-f/acre or 1/39th s-f/acre max month, 212 [corrected to 56 a-f; 212 included EDWARDS] a-f total, 53 a-f or .45 s-f max month [corrected to 14 a-f & .23 s-f max month], 8.9 acres irrigated; larger head by rotation, 1/2 mile from diversion to irrigated land , 20% conveyance, no sloughs; G.C. ELLIS also irrigated from Grindstone

    p. 3457 TUESDAY, 02/26/1924 - 1:30 P.M.
    pp. 3457-66 A.T. WELTON for SUTLIFF & LAURA BELL GRIFFITH, Richard Belcher, atty, Marysville:
    p. 3457 Welton near Stonyford since 1869, SUTLIFF property sheet 11, irrigated at least from 1885, the date of appropriation
    p. 3458-61 ARMSTRONG & TATUM irrigating in 1869, BURGETT 1885 grain, alfalfa, cattle, hogs, a small dairy, greater area was under cultivation
    p. 3461-3 chemise on parts uncultivated; water-driven grist mill, JOHNSON ran for Burgett, wheat, barley, small orchard, 1885 ditch same place as current ditch, ditch some 1100 inches;
    p. 3463-6 J.W. MILLSAPS for SUTLIFF & LAURA BELL GRIFFITH; residence near Stonyford, knew land since 1898, road adjoins SUTLIFF; alfalfa, grain, quite a dairy, Mr. HICKOK running it for BURGETT Estate, small orchard MILLSAPS running a store & mail there, HICKOK butter to Willows, irrigated all that time, alongside the road quite a patch irrigated, alfalfa, grain, back to alfalfa, looked like 80 acres plus another field away from the road in alfalfa maybe a 40, got wood from Mr. HICKOK;
    p. 3467 HUNTER, Morton & Rankin on riparian claim which as ELLEN HUNTER not EDGAR HUNTER; Morton: if Spring Branch claim not urged, then no testimony, Rankin abandoned the amendment to add it

    p. 3468-76 CHARLES L. SIMPSON & ZIBA E. SIMPSON, 2400 acres where Newville road crosses Stony Creek, 600 acres bottom, reference government Exhibit 2 [MISSING]; all S6 less W 1/2 of W 1/2 T22N R4W; S7; W 1/2 W 1/2 S8; S18; N 1/2 N 1/2 S19; #1/2 E 1/2 S13 T22N R5W; NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S24; SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S13; 4/5ths interest NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S24;
    pp. 3470-2 some was irrigated in Section 6 before him; he planned to, irrigable 600 acres; creek destroyed the ditch intake, closed it up and filled it in to keep high water off the land; course changed making it impracticable, abandoned ditch, 1/4 mile of it remains; could use it by building it back into the creek, ditch was 8-10 feet at top, 6-8 feet in the bottom, depth up to 4 or 5 feet, would need a quarter of a mile of ditch to reconnect if a 12 - 15 foot fall to the mile?
    p. 3472 grain, alfalfa, orchards, cattle, hogs, sheep years ago; ditch 1-1/2 mile SW of the house
    p. 3473 Morton hammering on irrigating dormant claims; SIMPSON says there is enough water and plan to re-start, owned since 1898 but not done any irrigating
    p. 3474-6 Morton hammering on patents, et seq., and any severance from riparian rights; SIMPSON firm

    pp. 3477-9 Eriksen on J.S. SALE sheet 2; no irrigated land; NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S3 & SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S3, 4 acres, no ditches, borders south Bank of the Creek in two entries, both traversed by the Creek but then again not? irrigable by pump with 15-20' lift;

    pp. 3479-94 GEORGE W. LEWIS and his brother, sheet 11, LEWIS ditch & SUTLIFF ditch, rock & gravel temporary dam on bed of natural rock and shale in the channel on Big Stony, 2-1/2 miles to first irrigated land, left or north bank in SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S36 T18N R7W, enters LEWIS Ranch on S line of S 1/2 of SE 1/4 S19 T18N R6W, main lateral into SW 1/4 S20; serves LEWIS lands only, "so-called TAYLOR lands are now part of the LEWIS ranch." ditch only in fair condition, considerable leakage, 30% conveyance loss; 152-1/2 acres irrigated included in total 193.3 acres irrigable, 43.8 acres not yet irrigated in 1917 to were all irrigated by 1924, TAYLOR 80 S 1/2 SE 1/4 S19, now about 200 acres irrigated; portion in grain previous to being irrigated
    p. 3485 began irrigation about 1910, from hearsay; Rankin moves to strike hearsay, granted
    p. 3485 bench line runs diagonally across S20 separating lower bench from higher, 10-12 foot difference
    pp. 3486-92 TAYLOR 80 by border checks, LEWIS quarter (SW 1/4 S20) by flooding; border checks are preferable, less labor required and more economical use of water; all now from Lewis ditch, but some formerly from SUTLIFF ditch until LEWIS ditch completed soon after 1910, except for a small piece irrigated from a SUTLIFF lateral, SUTLIFF diversion a mile below LEWIS, no LEWIS spillway, land away from Stony nearest point a half mile; a few sloughs many of them have been filled, one open a quarter mile long crossing SE portion SW 1/4 S20, 15' wide, brush, willows, water grass, tules, fed by excess water from SUTLIFF ditch & BROWN ditch; Harding: 3.7 a-f/acre diversion 5.3 a-f/acre, 1.3 a-f 1/46th s-f max month, 30% conveyance, Harding found TAYLOR 80 required less, but this is average for all LEWIS; season total 1060 a-f for 200 acres, 808 for 152-1/2 acres in 1917, 202 a-f or 3.31 s-f max month which is "a good economical head", partial rotation useful; concrete lining would help, at least puddling needed; for 200 acres, 1060 a-f, 265 a-f & 4.35 s-f max month, but more than that is needed for an adequate head, fields are large needed a large head - implication is that Harding conveyance loss inadequate?

    p. 3492 RANKIN: "Q. I don't know what would be an economical head up there, but I do know that with a 3 foot head you couldn't get over 200 acres on the Orland Project, or even down here, because I tried it.
    A. Well, there is a heavy loss in transmission in that ditch.
    Q. Do you mean that that is the condition of the ditch there in its entire length, or just a part of it.
    A. Through a part of it.
    Q. A good part of that is through compact soil and is good ditch?
    A. Yes, the last half mile before it gets to the land.
    Q. Isn't it a fact that there is only about a mile of the ditch that is not in good condition, and that that is through the" SUTLIFF "property, where the ditch is located on the side of a hill or bluff?
    A. Yes, it is the part of the ditch that is along that side hill that leaks so badly. [p. 3493]
    Q. That is where most of the leakage is, isn't it?
    A. Yes, it is."
    p. 3493 portion from SUTLIFF ditch 5 acres, could be by flume from LEWIS ditch
    p. 3494 some of the lower bench now checked or bordered; LEWIS "is the only place I think of that is prepared in that way to quite an extent"

    p. 3495 WEDNESDAY, 02/27/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    pp. 3495-3500 W.W. GATLIFF, Sheet 3, W 1/2 SW 1/4 S15, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S22 T20N R6W [under Stony Gorge?]; diversion on sheet 5 in SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S27 near SE corner of that thence northerly along east bank; temporary dam of gravel and sometimes logs and timbers, dirt ditch in fairly good condition, 43.6 acres irrigted, 0 additional, some with border checks; 15 acres on a bench east requiring 10 foot lift; some sloughs about a quarter mile long, spillway in SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S22 1/2 mile from headgate, small head continues for stock, thence evaporates or seeps; 1-1/4 miles headgate to land; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f/acre 25% conveyance 4.7 a-f/acre diversion, 1.2 a-f/acre diverted max month at 1/51st s-f/acre; 205 a-f total & .86 s-f & 51 a-f diversion max month, larger head useful, by rotation; re-asks description, different result: SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S15 not traversed, W 1/2 SW 1/4, & E 1/2 SW 1/4 traverswed, & N 1/2 NW 1/4 S22 [?]; not traversed: N 1/2 NW 1/4 & W 1/2 NE 1/4; [how does this contrast with the first description at p. 3495], but on cross, traverses NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S22, & SW 1/4 SW 1/4 & NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S15 [back to te origional? which he said was not traversed on p. 3499?]

    pp. 3500-8 A.T. WELTON sheet 12; irrigated W 1/2 W 1/2 of NW 1/4 S32, E 1/2 NE 1/4 S31 T18N R6W, Morris-Welton ditch, plus 3.7 acres Kesselring ditch, diversion in SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S31 south bank west line 3/4 mile to land, no spillway, temporary dam of gravel, concrete headgate, when not irrigated turned back into the stream except a small amount for stock, stream passes through NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S31 portion of the ranch 1/4 miles from irrigated land, unused goes into the lateral & evaporates & seeps away, maybe a second foot; 40 acres irrigated then, several patches of alfalfa fenced apart, 3.7 separate from the other in NE corner of the place; 46 acres irrigated now, additional 6 in eastern portion of the main body of irrigated land; understand there is an agreement with Kesselring ditch; Kesselring diverts 3/4 mile lower than Welton, 3.7 could be irrigated from Welton ditch; 6 acres may have previously been irrigated; no sloughs; water not taken for stock goes into Kesselring ditch [so, which is it? seep or Kesselring?]; Harding: 4 a-f/acre at land, but for portion from Kesselring 4.5 a-f/acre at the diversion, 1.1 a-f/acre 1/55 s-f max month; diversion under Morris-Welton, conveyance is different, 4.7 a-f/acre, 1.2 a-f/acre 1/51st s-f max month, 199 a-f .90 s-f; under Kesselring 3.7 acres, 6 corrected to 17 a-f, 1-1/2 corrected to 4-1/2 in max month .09 corrected to .07 s-f; Welton would benefit from rotation; total under Kesselring 317.7 acres, rotation would help

    pp. 3508- ALEX BROWN sheets 10 & 11, 2 ditches; all T18N R6W, E 1/2 of SE 1/4 & E 1/2 NE 1/4 S17 , W 1/2 NW 1/4 & W 1/2 SW 1/4 S16, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S20; plus irrigable, all E 1/2 NE 1/4 S??, W 1/2 NW 1/4 S21, NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S??, in every 40 of SE 1/4 S20 , in every 40 NE 1/4 S29; 2 ditches, upper from stream in SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S29 terminates in a slough, all lands in S29 & S20 under this ditch; #2 from left or west bank in NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S29 into a slough near NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S20 for 1000 feet & then taken out, over O'LEARY & back into BROWN, flume across Dry Creek covering S17, S20, S21 lands; 210.3 acres upper 53.2 & lower 157.1, additional 114.2 upper and 75.7 lower; irrigated & irrigable upper total 167.4, lower 232.8; 1923 30 more irrigated under lower giving 187.1 irrigated & 202.8 irrigable, ditch #1 not used goes into a slough, when unused it still runs because it covers a large area including CHASTAIN about 15 acres & O'LEARY about 5 acres, giving a total under ditch #1 of 73.2 acres; #1 3/4 mile to first irrigated BROWN lands and 1/4 mile to first CHASTAIN; both ditches converge where some but not all water taken out of slough for O'LEARY, at end of slough seeps away, some 600' to the creek; westerly slough 1-1/2 mile long, average width of water surface 10-12', 2/3 in brush mostly willow, water grass, tules, 1/3 no brush but other vegetation, vegetation that grows in very wet places; easterly 1 mile long, 2/3 willow brush, same average width as the other; lands by flooding, not checked; Harding: for all, 4 a-f/acre, 5.3 a-f/acre diversion 1.3 a-f/acre & 1/46 s-f/acre max month; upper ditch 1917 season 282 a=f, 70-1/2 a-f & 1.16 s-f max month; lower ditch season 833 a-f , 208 a-f or 3.42 s-f max month; 1923 same for upper ditch; 1923 for lower 992 a-f, 248 a-f & 4.07 s-f max month; 25% conveyance; extra 30 acres showed signs in 1917 of previous irrigation, in alfalfa;
    pp. 3414-6 2 sloughs with waste water; more easterly one connects with another [?] & carries water for the lower ditch diverted at that connection and "in this way excess water from the upper ditch finds its way through the slough into the lower ditch" [confusing, does the westerly connect with the ditch or not?]; westerly 1-1/2 miles long; easterly 1 mile;
    [to vol. 22, 20 is out of order, 21 is Ayers deeds]
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    [RETURN TO THIS ONE]

    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 20 pp 3519 - 3920
    Tuesday, 10/02/1923 (in sequence, it would be between vols. 16 & 17)

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

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

    Case of Defendant L.R. CUSHMAN

    Witnesses called:
    L.R. Cushman D 3520, X 3525
    J.J. Hull D 3529, X 3530
    L.R. Cushman Recalled D 3532

    Case of Defendants JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION and ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION

    Statement by Mr. Freeman D 3534
    Asking to withdraw pleadings by James Mills Orchards and Esperanza Land, and replace them later with Answers and disclaimers (as long as present conditions exist, but not to be bound by such disclaimer if Government makes subsequent diversions, and to not be bound any further as to any cost of the record from then on), Master unsure whether he has the power to allow it, "My only authority is to take testimony."

    Case of Defendants BROWNELLS

    Witnesses called:
    L.E. BROWNELL D 3536, X 3541, RD 3543, RX 3545
    R.H. BROWNELL D 3547, X 3547

    Tabulation of instruments showing record of title D 3550
    Copies of instruments constitutiong record of title D 3586

    p. 3520-33 L.R. CUSHMAN
    p. 3521 50 years when there is water in the creek, orchards, alfalfa, grain, corn, grass
    p. 3522 Watson Creek; & garden, above the house always some water, goes dry at the house except in holes
    p. 3523 water until May or June, some years July, this year until October by pump; & stock; ditch & dam, or if too low dig a hole to bed rock
    p. 3524 Notice of Appropriation of water by L.R. Cushman 01/18/1907; 12 acres in orchards
    p. 3525 6 acres in alfalfa; other 20 acres until "we had the suit over here a while back" - 12 years ago? by ditch
    p. 3527 why not more irrigation? water limited, time more limited
    p. 3529 J.J. Hull for Mr. Cushman, neighbors
    p. 3533 confusion over which family member owns what piece of what section, turns out bulk of what he was irrigating was his mother's?
    p. 3534 Withdrawing JAMES MILLS ORCHARDS CORPORATION & ESPERANZA LAND CORPORATION answers.
    p. 3536-46 L.R. BROWNELL, starts riparian designations, Morton objects, McCutchen reserves; starting across the creek from Simpson. . .
    p. 3540 Old Julian orchard; Hardin Ranch
    p. 3541 More Morton repetions of the same riparian objection
    pp. 3541-2 Bert Cole survey for Julian Rocks dam, Eriksen: 1903?
    pp. 3542-3 total riparian claim 4500 acres; Morton hammering on lack of water for that much additional; BROWNELL: have enough water to irrigate 2/3 of it or more based on the experiences they've had, Morton interrupting, badgering on volume of water
    pp. 3544-5 land BROWNELL said couldn't be irrigated by gravity could be by lift, 200 acres
    pp. 3545-6 75% of the 4700 acres has been farmed, wheat & barley
    pp. 3547-8 R.H. BROWNELL, ran levels on the 4700 acres, practically all susceptible of irrigation
    p. 3547-8 Morton hammering on supply;
    p. 3548 R.H. carried chain & run levels all his life;

    pp. 3550 - 3585 an index by quarter/quarter to BROWNELL proofs in the rest of the volume; [where is the rebuttal that gets BROWNELLs down to the 1535 acres in the Riparian schedule?] --

    p. 3587-3654 patent California and Oregon Railroad & successor Central Pacific Railroad, 332582.66 acres, 03/14/1875
    p. 3655-3659 deed Central Pacific Railroad Company to Irving W. BROWNELL (narrative regarding trustees on DOT for bondholders, Charles Crocker, Silas W. Sanderson, Mark Hopkins, David D. Colton, James O'B. Gunn) 02/16/1883
    P. 3661- Decree of Distribution, Estate of Irving W. BROWNELL, deceased, intestate, realty 1/2 Lois R. BROWNELL surviving wife, 1/6 each to 3 surviving heirs Louis E. BROWNELL, Irving L. Brownell, Roscoe H. BROWNELL, 12/21/1901
    p. 3669 Patent William Henry Halley certificate #362 [from this point on, Reporter lists certificate numbers]
    p. 3671 indenture W.C. Halley to D.W. Copelan [sic] 11/21/1867
    p. 3674 indenture D.W. Copeland & Samantha E. Copeland to Francis Houghton 11/21/1867
    p. 3677 I.F. Houghton quitclaim to I.W. BROWNELL 03/01/1869
    p. 3679 deed William Henry Halley to I.W. BROWNELL 10/26/1892
    p. 3681 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3794
    p. 3683 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 12/01/1868 certificate #2376
    p. 3685 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 06/01/1872 certificate #5002
    p. 3687 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 10/01/1876 certificate #5390
    p. 3689 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 04/15/1871 certificate #4226
    p. 3691 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 09/06/1872 certificate #5108
    p. 3693 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #481
    p. 3695 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 03/10/1886
    p. 3702 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 08/16/1866 certificate #1657
    p. 3704 patent William Henry Halley 12/01/1860 certificate #400
    p. 3706 patent Matthew Sparks 12/01/1860 certificate #260
    p. 3708 deed Matthew Sparks to Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 08/04/1859
    p. 3711 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 07/11/1881
    p. 3717 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 03/10/1887
    p. 3723 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 08/03/1883
    p. 3730 indenture W.F. Goad to A. Montgomery 11/02/1883
    p. 3731-3816 Decree of Distribution, 05/15/1895, W.F. Goad and A.W. Foster executors of the will of Alexander A. Montgomery & trustees for Annie A. Montgomery & Hazel G. Montgomery, trustees sued everybody, San Francisco Superior Court #50,655 to allow distribution of property rather than cash, maybe; 69 page inventory: to trustees [?] many notes secured by property in Glenn, Tehama, Colusa and other counties; much land including in the stretch of Stony Creek between Stony Gorge & East Park; etc.; to Elizabeth, including lands in Stonyford or near there or under East Park, etc. and in Indian Valley including lands awarded Terence Masterson by judgment or decree of District Court of 10th Judicial District in and for the County of Colusa against Jeremiah Sullivan (plus note by Terence Masterson to A. Montgomery for $100) and John Sullivan; plus much of the land between Stonyford and the confluence of Little Stony, plus much of BROWNELL lands and lands east of them, plus parts of Tryon lands on Burris Creek [?] and lands in Newville and on Bedford Creek [?];
    p. 3820 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3811
    p. 3822 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 09/06/1872 certificate #5109
    p. 3825 College grant patent Irving W. BROWNELL 09/20/1872
    p. 3827 College grant patent Irving W. BROWNELL 06/05/1872
    p. 3829 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 08/29/1887
    p. 3835 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #3835
    p. 3837 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 05/27/1886
    p. 3843 military patent William E. Skeen 12/01/1860
    p. 3845 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #468
    p. 3847 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3793
    p. 3849 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3809
    p. 3851 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3810
    p. 3853 College grant patent Irving W. BROWNELL 09/20/1872
    p. 3855 deed Central Pacific Railroad to I.W. BROWNELL 12/03/1885
    p. 3862 indenture A.D. Logan to C.H. Worland 07/23/1872
    p. 3865 indenture C.H. Worland to A. Montgomery 10/01/1873
    p. 3868 indenture William Cheltman to Irving W. BROWNELL 11/28/1883
    p. 3870 indenture A. Montgomery to William Cheltnam [sic] 07/01/1881
    p. 3872 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 06/01/1872 certificate #5003
    p. 3875 College grant patent Irving W. BROWNELL 06/05/1872
    p. 3877 patent Anderson D. Logan 09/06/1872 [no certificate #?]
    p. 3880 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3791
    p. 3882 patent E.H. Miller, Junior 08/05/1869 certificate #3672
    p. 3884 deed E.H. Miller, Jr. to J. [sic] W. BROWNELL 04/04/1872
    p. 3887 Military patent [?] assigned by Michael Logue to Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860
    p. 3889 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #469
    p. 3891 patent Irving W. BROWNELL 03/05/1870 certificate #3812
    p. 3893 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #470
    p. 3895 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 02/02/1881
    p. 3901 deed Central Pacific Railroad to Irving W. BROWNELL 07/13/1885
    p. 3907 deed Irving W. BROWNELL to Haywood Bennett Julian 04/08/1885 ["Julian Rocks?"]
    p. 3910 deed Susan A. Julian, Administratrix Estate of H.B. Julian to L.E. BROWNELL, I.L. Brownell, R.H. Brownell as highest & best bidders under Glenn Superior Court order to sell, 06/17/1916
    p. 3915 patent E.H. Miller, Jr. 08/05/1869 certificate #3664
    p. 3917 patent Irving Woodbridge BROWNELL 12/01/1860 certificate #466
    p. 3919 patent I.W. BROWNELL 12/01/1868 certificate #2377 [sure is a lot of patents for one man. . . . ]

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 21 pp 3921 - 3999
    Date?

    RECORD OF TITLE IN CASE OF DEFENDANT J.E. AYER
    offered by C.L. Witten, Esq., attorney for defendant

    p. 3922 patent E.H. Miller, Jr. 08/05/1869 certificate #3669
    p. 3923 patent Samuel Lemmon 12/05/1861 certificate #3925
    p. 3926 quitclaim E.H. Miller to David Corbin 04/05/1872
    p. 3928 deed Samuel Lemmon to David Corbin 11/06/1871
    p. 3931 deed David Corbin to Addie E. Corbin his wife 09/25/1875
    p. 3934 deed D.H. Arnold Ex Sheriff County of Colusa to W.C. Baylor 03/11/1880 forclosure action/auction against L.P. Tooley administrator of Estate of David Corbin deceased, John West administrator of Estate of Addie Corbin deceased, Jessie Corbin a minor and E.H. Miller, Jr.
    p. 3939 deed D.H. Arnold Sheriff County of Colusa to E.H. Miller Jr. 02/11/1880 forclosure action/auction against L.P. Tooley administrator of Estate of David Corbin deceased, John West administrator of Estate of Addie Corbin deceased, Jessie Corbin a minor and E.H. Miller, Jr.
    p. 3944 deed Jessie Troxel (formerly Jessie Corbin) to W.C. Baylor 05/06/1892
    p. 3947 quitclaim E.H. Miller to W.C. Baylor 02/09/1881
    p. 3949 quitclaim E.H. Miller to W.C. Baylor 03/19/1884 [?]
    p. 3950 Edgar Hunter, Executor of will & estate of W.C. Baylor, deceased, decree of settlement, to Francis [sic] E. Baylor, widow, 09/25/1911
    p. 3958 Edgar Hunter, Executor of will & estate of W.C. Baylor, deceased, Second decree of settlement, correcting her name to Frances E. Baylor, 12/18/1911
    p. 3965 J.B. Riddle, Executor of will & estate of Frances E. Baylor, deceased, intestate, decree of settlement, to J.B. Riddle (p. 3984 et seq.), sole heir, 10/19/1912
    p. 3988 deed J.B. Riddle to J.E. Ayer 10/23/1912
    p. 3992 patent C.C. Hatfield 10/10/1879 certificate #6843
    p. 3995 deed C.C. Hatfield and Eliza M. Hatfield, his wife to W.C. Baylor 12/10/1881
    p. 3998 deed W.C. Baylor to D.W. Grover, 60' wide strip for road or flume purposes, Stoney Creek near Bridgeport to Rocroft [sic] lands as surveyed by H.A. Hicks Civil Engineer 08/1888, 10/20/1888

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 22 pp 4000 - 4237
    [ index-4000,4113-4115,4123-4127,4137-4139,4148-4154,4185-4207 -- ]
    Thursday, 03/27/1924
    Friday, 03/28/1924
    Saturday, 03/29/1924
    Thursday, 04/03/1924
    Friday, 04/04/1924
    Saturday, 04/05/1924

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

    R.M. Rankin, Esq., Willows, Calif.
    For his respective Defendants.

    IN BEHALF OF UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen
    Case of Defendant BICKFORD D 4000
    " TRIPLETT D 4004 & 4058, X 4016 & 4065, RD 4020
    " SMITH D 4021
    " NEISEN D 4027, X 4031
    " KIMEL D 4031
    " CHASTAIN D 4034 & 4042, X 4039
    " FOUTCH D 4040
    " ROBERTSON D 4042
    " HUNTER D 4045
    " ELLIS D 4046, X 4053, RD 4055 & 4057, RX 4056
    " MARKHAM D 4065
    " EDWARDS D 4070
    " PHELPS D 4074
    " HARBISON D 4076, X 4077, RD 4078
    " HINELINE D 4079, X 4085
    " BRITTAN-H.N. D 4087
    " RAY D 4090, X 4092, RD 4093
    " MOON D 4093
    " MORRIS D 4096, X 4098
    " DEIFENBACK D 4099
    " FORMAN D 4101
    " BRITTAN-Jas. Q D 4103, X 4105
    " BEDFORD D 4106
    " HUFFMASTER D 4111
    " CONKLINS D 4113
    " WOOD D 4115
    " WELCH D 4119
    " WORTHS D 4120, X 4123
    " MASTERSON D 4123, X 4126
    " FOUTS SPGS CO. & C.H. GLENN D 4128, X 4134
    " KESSELRING D 4137, X 4155, RD 4159
    " PEARSON D 4161, X 4163
    " MILLSAPS D 4165, X 4168, RD 4171
    " LOVELACE D 4172, X 4175, RD 4177
    " KAERTH D 4178, X 4180
    " KENNEDYS D 4180
    " LOVELADY D 4182 & 4208, X 4209
    " Annie E. LOVELADY D 4210, X 4211, RD 4212
    " ADAMS D 4213
    " FENDER D 4214, X 4217
    " STITES-J.F. D 4218, X 4219
    " STITES-Rufus D 4220, X 4221, RD 4222 & 4224, RX 4223
    " DRISCOLL D 4226, X 4229
    " O'LEARY D 4229 & 4233

    CLARKE REPORT D 4234
    W.T. CLARKE D 4148, X 4153, RD 4154
    M.E. READY D 4185, X 4202, RD 4206

    p. 4000 THURSDAY, 03/27/1924 - 10:00 A.M.

    p. 4000 E.T. Eriksen recalled for USA
    p. 4000-3 O.F. BICKFORD sheet 13, under ditch NW 1/4 SE 1/4 S9 T20N R6W, 1917 flume 200', ditch 100'; pump foundation west bank 100' north of south line of property; remnants of alfalfa, 12 acres; 4" pump, 6 hp Sampson Gas Engine, 600 feet of pipe; Harding: 4 a-f at land & diversion, zero conveyance, 1 a-f/acre 1 s-f/60 acres or 1/60th s-f/acre max month, season total 48 a=f, 12 a-f & .2 s-f max month; usually pumps 3 times that much, head by rotation
    p. 4004-7 ABE L. TRIPLETT sheet 8, diversion sheet 9, NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 (or is it NE 1/4 SE 1/4 ?) S3 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S2 all T18N R6W ; W 1/2 SE 1/4 S34 T19N R6W, diversion in NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S11 on west bank; temporary dam of dirt & gravel & logs, dirt ditch w/considerable conveyance loss, first 1/2 mile close to the creeki so loss goes back into the creek, spillway near ditch head, shut off by wooden gate in ditch & part of it goes over the bank at a low point into the creek, some still allowed for stock maybe 2-3 s-f, 30-40 head of cattle can water from the creek in most cases, some parts fenced off;, each "subdivision" touched by creek except for NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S3
    p. 4007-16 unused goes into sloughs, many sloughs, all connected but one and that one seeps or evaporates or back to creek 1/4 mile down, others converge to a 1-1/4 s-f flow back into the creek; water grass, tules, willow brush, average width 10-12 feet at water surface with 20-30 feet taking in bordering vegetation; total 3-1/2 miles of sloughs, more sloughs on this ranch than any other surveyed, a network of them, cattle feed on slough grasses, not so much on willows; curent varies; 5 acres of sloughs, 12 acres of sloughs and surrounding vegetation, ground poorly prepared for irrigation, high & low places, watered unevenly, alfalfa, sweet clover, garden, water standing in the lows kills the alfalfa or other crops; water is allowed to run more or less continuously; condition of land is wasteful of water, seepage & evaporation larger than it should be, ditch goes into a slough & then taken back out again to the W 1/2 SE 1/4 S34, more economical for a ditch or flume, some laterals for land between the sloughs, better for a good main ditch with flumes; 58.3 acres irrigated and 33 irrigable, the 33 mostly covered with brush, some in timber not cleared, plus the 12 acres slough lands; unirrigated, 3 pieces in weeds, 2 in pasture, one in sweet clover; pasture in "some ordinary wild grass", may be alfalfa remnants; 1923 74.9 acres irrigated; Harding: 2/3 requiring 5 a-f/acre at the land, 1/3 4 a-f/acre, average diverison 6.7 a-f/acre with 30% conveyance; 1.7 a-f/acre or 1/37 s-f/acre max month; 1917 58.3 acres 391 a-f total, 98 a-f & 1.6 cfs max month, no, at 1/37th cfs/acre or 2.6 cfs; 1923 502 a-f, 126 a-f 3.4 cfs max month; both heads need to be larger, by rotation
    p. 4017-9 Rankin: Triplett Exhibit B; total of 91 acres sometimes irrigated on the land, figure not given above; measuremens in ditch 1918 - 1922 average 4.1 cfs throughout the season
    p. 4018 If a proper ditch, would need only a third of the present need to reach the north eighty; Rankin: watered brush areas provide feed, Eriksen: yes; Rankin: but not included in irrigated acrages? Eriksen: no

    p. 4020 AFTERNOON SESSION - THURSDAY, 03/21/1924 - 1:30 P.M.

    p. 4020 more on TRIPLETT; brush lands, undergrowth, weeds, sweet clover. water table kept pretty high by the large run into the sloughs
    p. 4021- E.E. SMITH sheet 1, E 1/2 SW 1/4 & SE 1/4 NW 1/4 S22 T21N R6W; diversion in SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S22 by pump on West Bank, short flume from pump to ditch , 1 part at the diversion, another 700' away; alfalfa, garden, small ditch, in very good condition, 4" centrifugal pump, 6 hp Economy Gasoline Engine, 5.4 acres in 1917, plus 6 acres susceptible, no sloughs, small head when not irrigating for stock & turkeys, could water the stock from the creek but not so convenient for the 600 turkeys; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f/acre at land & diversion, zero conveyance, .9 s-f/acre [?] & 1/70th s-f/acre max month; 19 a-f season for 5.4 acres, .08 s-f max month diversion, larger head required, by rotation; 1/4 mile above Grindstone
    pp. 4025-7 identifying irrigators for whom stored water passes their places: A.C. BAYLEY, A.M. GLLLNICK, FRANK TROXEL, MULFORD, JOHN O. JOHANSEN, I.E. TRUE, JAMES HARMON, JOHN H. SOETH; not C.H. RIDLEY which is on Elk Creek, not ELLA LUCAS, not C.E. STUDYBAKER, not CARL A. GREEN, not S.N. GREEN, not HARVEY E. PROVENCE, yes J.E. KNIGHT, not W.H. STITES, not MARY O'LEARY, yes WAKEFIELD and WHALLEY (near the confluence of Little & Big Stony), not L.E. MANN on Salt Creek, not S.F. PAINE at lower end of the Stonyford Section, not EDGAR HUNTER on Grindstone, yes J.S. SALE but "he doesn't use any water yet", not GEORGE W. LEWIS, et al., yes W.W. GATLIFF 8 miles below the mouth of Little Stony; not A.T. WELTON near the mouth of Little Stony, not ALEX BROWN, yes O.F. BICKFORD 10 miles below the confluence, yes ABE L. TRIPLETT a short distance below the confluence, yes E.E. SMITH
    p. 4027-31 Mr. NEISEN, sheet 2, well below the confluence, E /2 SW 1/4 S27 T21N R6W, 3.7 acres plus .8 acre susceptible, now entire 4.5 acres irrigated; one slough between land & the creek, little affected by irrigation, often dry; by 4" centrifugal pump w/6 hp gasoline engine, pumped only when needed for irrigation because it's expensive; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f/acre, zero conveyance, 9 changed to .9 a-f/acre at 1/70th s-f/acre max month; all land, 16 a-f for season, 4 a-f at .07 s-f max month but a larger head needed by rotation; pump would give .6 to .9 s-f;
    p. 4031-4 LUCY KIMEL sheet 2, was J. Van Scyoc, several miles below confluence, NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S3 T20N R6W; diversion in SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S3 w/pump on east bank [on other side of the creek?], 6.9 acres irrigated, pumped to a 250' flume and thence a short ditch; alfalfa, 1 acre garden, rest plowed up and now grain, no sloughs; Harding: 3-1/2 a-f/acre & zero conveyance; .9 a-f/acre at 1/70th s-f/acre max month; for 6.9 acres [says acre-feet, in error] 24 a-f season, 6 a-f at .1 s-f in max month, head by pump is .6 s-f, pump only when irrigating; for garden only, 3-1/2 a-f, .9 a-f & 1/70th s-f/acre .02 s-f max month,
    p. 4034 HENRY CHASTAIN sheet 11, 3-4 miles above confluence; N 1/2 of SW 1/4 S29; one diversion SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S29 (Brown ditch #1 or Polley ditch,), other NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S31 (Sutliff ditch); both T18N R6W; 20 acres from Brown #1, 1/8th mile from diversion; 22-1/2 acres ffrom Sutliff, 1 mile from diversion; 29.9 acres in 1917; Brown 1 9.9 acres & Sutliff 20 acres; succeeds EMMA WITCHER ; all 42.4 acres showed signs of recent irrigation in 1917 with laterals & remnants of alfalfa; some orchard, 1-2 acres of corn; 2 sloughs, average width 8-10 feet, one a quartet mile, other less than a quarter, usually water from the ditches standing in them during irrigation season (east slough from Brown #1 flume leakage, west from Sutliff), sloughs brush, tules, grass, some in the sloughs, mostly on the banks; Harding: 5 a-f/acre to the land, 20% conveyance, 6-1/4 a-f/acre diversion 1.55 a-f/acre & 1/39 s-f/acre max month; season 266 a-f, 66-1/4 a-f 1.09 s-f max month ; Brown #1, season 125 a-f, 31 a-f .51 s-f max month; Sutliff 141 a-f, 35 a-f .58 s-f max month; larger head needed, by rotation; easterly slough extends through lands uphill from Chastain, Stony touches SE corner of Chastain

    p. 4040 W.J. FOUTCH sheet 11; 3 or 4 miles above Little Stony; NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S29 [T18N R6W ?] 5 acres now, 4.3 in 1917; Harding: 5 a-f/a w/20% conveyance or 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1.55 a-f/a 1/39 s-f/a max month; 31 a-f season total, 8 a-f at .13 s-f max month which is too small, rotation required;
    p. 4042 HENRY CHASTAIN , creek touches S/E corner
    p. 4042 I.L. ROBERTSON sheet 11; above Little Stony 2 to 3 miles, so why was he one of the original defendants? answer is, he wasn't, Ericksen mis-spoke; 40 acres, SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 S29 T18N R6W, of which 15 acres irrigated in 1917 with 3.3 acres susceptible; one slough, Robertson ditch takes water from Kesselring ditch, & maybe hill drainage; Harding: 5 a-f/a, 20% conveyance, 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1.55 a-f/a or 1/39th s-f/a max month, 94 a-f/season, 23-1/2 a-f or .51 s-f max month, rotation useful, Kesselring ditch in good condition, Robertson not touched by Stony Creek;
    p. 4045 ELLEN HUNTER, later
    p. 4046 GEORGE C. ELLIS sheet 1, Grindstone & Watson Creek; Watson: 1/8th mile ditch, concrete heading, gravel dam, along north side of Grindstone to tract at W line SE 1/4 NW 1/4 S16 T21N R6W, irrigated tract 1600' long & narrow w/7-1/2 acres in SW 1/4 NW 1/4 & S/W 1/4 NE 1/4 S16 with no other irrigable; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land, 6.25 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/a & 1/39 s-f max month, 47 a-f/season, .19 s-f max month but rotation helpful; Grindstone [?]: ordinary years water stops about the last of July but in an occasional year there is flow throughout the season; Harding, 12 a-f, .19 s-f max month; [land irrigated from Watson is traversed by Grindstone?] touched by Grindstone: SE 1/4 NE 1/4 & SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , S 1/2 SW 1/4 S9, S 1/2 SE 1/4 S9, N 1/2 NW 1/4 S16 & N 1/2 NE 1/4 S16; only on plaintiff's Exhibit #2 [?], 18 irrigated acres in 1921; "source of supply for this land? A. Watson Creek" [so what was the other? actually Grindstone?] irrigated from Watson, in SE 1/4 SW 1/4 & SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S9 & NE 1/4 NW 1/4 & NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S16 T21N R6W [source for Exhibit 2 map the Glenn County Map? scale 4,000 feet to 1 inch], Watson Creek traverses NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S9, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S9, SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S9, NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S16, SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S16, diversion in NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S9 thence 1/8 mile or less to irrigated land; [p. 4053] Harding: 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/a or 1/39 s-f/a max month; 113 a-f/season for 18 acres, 28 a-f .46 s-f max month, but a tributary that does not run throughout the season, only occasional years;

    p. 4053 MR RANKIN: Q. Mr. Eriksen, doesn't Grindstone Creek traverse each Forty in the north half of the south half of Section 16, excepting the northwest quarter of southwest quarter?
    A. Yes.
    Q. If as in usual years Grindstone Creek ceases to flow [p. 4054] in the latter part or the last of July, it isn't probable that there will be much water flowing in the Creek then in the last part of July?
    A. No.
    Q. It would not be feasible to secure a head of water for irrigation during all of July?
    A. Not a large head.
    Q. Then this quite elaborate theory of maximum use during some certain months or some certain month could not very well be applied to that stream, could it, Mr. Eriksen?
    A. No, the only point that I have tried to make is that these figures are a reasonable requirement.
    Q. For the season?
    A. Yes; the land may not get that if the water is not there but the requirement is the same.
    Q. But what I mean is that if this theory of maximum use is applicable to the stream, you could not very well apply it if the flow is uncertain, could you?
    A. No, unless you used a month like June, or May, when there was a maximum amount of water there.
    Q. And another thing I do not understand, and which I would like to have you explain to me, in connection with that maximum use, is the reason why you call it the month of maximum use? First, what is the month of maximum use.
    MR. MORTON: 'The' month--not that; it is 'a' month, not 'the' month.
    MR. RANKIN: All right. What is a month of maximum use?
    A. As I understand it, it is really the month when the most water is required, which would naturally be the hottest part of the summer, which usually occurs in July. [p. 4055]
    Q. Would you say it usually comes in July or in August?
    A. In some summers it might come in July and in others it might come in May--the last half of July and the last half of August.
    Q. You couldn't very well tell when it was until the summer was over, could you?
    A. No.
    Q. Then of what use would it be to you?
    A. It represents something that is done every year with every piece of land, I think. There is a month, or about a month, when more water is used than in some other month.
    Q. Taking ordinary years, can you see any appreciable difference in the amount of water that is used to irrigate with, in the month of July and the month of August--they are both hot months?
    A. It isn't anything that could be figures with a great deal of refinement, I think, but there is about a month, or about 30 days, during the summer when more water is required on account of the heat.
    Q. That may come in July or it may come in August?
    A. Yes.
    Q. and part of it may come in June?
    A. Yes.
    MR. RANKIN: That is all.
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION

    MR. MORTON: Q. I think you and Mr. Rankin are talking at cross purposes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Harding does not refer to 'the' month of maximum use, but 'a' month of maximum use, and a month of maxumum [sic] use does not imply that there might be not more than one month of maximum use. As a matter of fact his figures rather assume that there is. [p. 4056] I will ask you if it isn't a fact that don't you find on the Stony Creek watershed, and using anything within your actual knowledge--I don't want you to theorize about it--but don't you find on the Project and on the stream system itself that there is a period of about two to three months where each month is a month of maximum use--possibly two months or possibly three months, or possibly two months and a half?
    A. No.
    Q. You don't?
    A. No. Based on all experiences the seasonal distribution of water, say, on the Orland Project, shows a gradual increase from the beginning of the season up to about July and a gradual decrease to the end of the season.
    Q. Then you are correct and I am mistaken, but my understanding was that a month of maximum use might run over a longer period than a month.
    A. Yes, I think so, but the month was taken as a sort of an average--about 30 days in the middle of the summer when more water was used than in any other month in the season.
    Q. When does that usually occur in the Stony Creek watershed?
    A. About August.
    MR. MORTON: I think that is all.
    RECROSS EXAMINATION

    MR RANKIN: Q. Then you mean in the center of that month, somewher about the middle of July, indicates a month when more water is used than later in August or September?
    A. Used when required and when the water is available, like on the Orland Project, when more water is used.
    THE MASTER: Q. Do you mean by that a calendar month [p. 4057] or any period of 30 consecutive days?
    A. Any period of thirty days; it may be more and it may be less.
    FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

    MR. MORTON: Q. In a stream like Grindstone, Mr. Eriksen, which is a flashier stream than Stony Creek, that is, that water is available for only a portion of the summer, to wit, until at the end of July, during the time that it is available there is no difference in the requirement for the raising of crops during that time, is there?
    A. No.
    Q, Mr. Harding's figures refer then, to what; do they refer to the fact that water must be available or do they refer to the crops requiring so much water, if the water is available?
    A. They refer to the fact that crops require so much water, whether it is available or not.
    Q. Then on Grindstone Creek in the month of June, the crops--would they require ordinarily the maximum amount?
    A. No.
    Q. In July on Grindstone Creek, ordinarily would they require the maximum amount.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Would they require, or rather, I mean to say would they get the maximum amount ordinarily?
    A. No.
    Q. They would be short the maximum requirement--is that the idea?
    A. Yes.
    MR. MORTON: That is all.

    p. 4058 FRIDAY, 03/28/1924 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4058-65 ABE L. TRIPLETT Exhibit A [MISSING], sheet #8 55 acres not colored - brush & timber 40.5, sloughs 11.5, washed gravel 3 acres, plus green & yellow of 91 acres totals 146 acres; map prepared by Mr. Russell? problems with reconcililg maps & map scales between the two mappings? McCutchen, Eriksen's "combination map" received as Plaintiff's Exhibit 43 [also MISSING - 43 is the 1902 USDA pamphlet]
    p. 4065 G.W. MARKHAM sheet 15, NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S6 T22N R4W; was irrigated by pumping, not now irrigated, pump in westerly of NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S6 on west or left bank, underground pipe across the public road into a field; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land, zero conveyance, 1.3 a-f/acre or 1/46th s-f/acre max month; season 20 acre feet, 5 a-f or .11 s-f max month; pump .6 s-f, by rotation; .6 is reasonable, 6 h-p gasoline ending & a 4-inch pipe, maybe, a reasonable head;
    p. 4068-9 Markham's additional irrigable 125 acres, on Plaintiff's Exhibit #2 [MISSING]; bottom land and perhaps on 1st bench; possible W 1/2 SW 1/4 touched by the creek
    p. 4070 J.T. EDWARDS at or near mouth of Grindstone, lands do not touch Stony Creek, S 1/2 NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 S15 T21N R6W 1/8 mile gravity ditch from Grindstone POD SW corner NW 1/4 S15 at south or east bank of the Creek, 17.5 acres irrigated 1917, county road borders, alfalfa, garden, corn, temporary gravel dam, very good ditch with a timber headgate, small head run for stock when not irrigating, excess through Hunter to Grindstone via natural depression; Harding: 5 a-f/acre & 6-1/4 a-f diversion; 1.55 a-f/acre & 1/39th s-f/acre max month, season 109 a-f, 27 a-f & .45 s-f max month; Grindstone runs to latter of July and occasionally throughout the season; conveyance 20%, spillway 400' from head
    p. 4074 E.C.PHELPS sheet 2, a mountain tract off Little Stony, Line Creek, [but appropriation schedule 6W ERROR on POD, POU 7W on Pine Ridge which makes more sense] 16 miles S/E of Stonyford by road; 4.4 irrigated & 6 more might be but not then under ditch; small dirt ditch 1' x 1'; slope is steep, velocity is quite large, ditch is all that is required; Harding, estimated, 5 a-f/acre, 20% transmission, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, .55 a-f/acre max month, 28 a-f total, 7 a-f max month at .11 s-f ; stream "flow is small but continuous throughout the season"; need larger head, by rotation; alfalfa, garden, small ordhard
    p. 4076 JOHN A. HARBISON a mountain tract on Line Creek, same section as PHELPS; slopes are steep, POD close to POU; 5 acres irrigated; alfalfa; Harding 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at POD, .55 a-f/acre max month, season 31 a-f, nearly 8 a-f diverted max month, of .13 s-f, more by rotation
    p. 4078 Rankin: Phelps & Harbison say Harbison diverts from Hog Wallow Creek [T, R & S show it off Little Stony....]
    p. 4079 S.A. HINELINE sheet 9, by mistake as C.A. HINELINE, short distance below confluence of Big & Little; POU NW 1/4 S10 & NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S11 T16N R6W but land under ditch in S11 is Wakefield's, not Hineline's; 8.8 acres, 6.2 Hineline & 2.6 across the line in Wakefield; diversion in NW 1/4 SE 1/4 S10 thence N/E 1/4 mile to tract thence along southerly end of tract and thence along westerly edge or along a ridge in the filed in a N/E direction through the tract; temporary dam, ditch in very good condition, no spillway, usually not cut down, excess through some 1/4 mile sloughs into Triplett ditch, slough 20-30' wide, brush & willows, some grass & tules, uses a large amount of water, evaporation is very great because it spreads out,; very wasteful of the water, water should be cut off when not irrigating, spillway would help, stock no access to creek, but if fence opened & lane to creek created....; Harding 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 diverted, 1/4 or .55 a-f/a max month w/diversion of 1/39 s-f/acre; 55 a-f total, 14 a-f max month at .23 s-f, adequate head by rotation; Hineline only, 39 a-f, 9-3/4 max month .18 s-f; alfalfa, small garden

    p. 4085 AFTERNOON SESSON - FRIDAY, 03/28/1924 1:30 P.M.
    p. 4085 E.T. ERIKSEN continues,
    p. 4085 HINELINE continues; entire 8.8 acres within one fence line; Hineline or Wakefield, based on Eriksen speculation as to subdivision lines? understood irrigation for 5 years before 1917 but not proven?
    p. 4087 H.N. BRITTAN, land on North Fork Big Stony NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S10 T18N R7W, water from Ida Creek in same subdivision crossing north fork Ida Creek in pipe line turning south along easterly boundary of the irrigated field; irrigating 15 acres? irrigated 4, irrigable by extending the ditch 6, 15 includes all irrigated or irrigable by both Mr. BRITTAN and E.P. RAY who had land on opposite side of North Fork Big Stony; alfalfa, small orchard, garden; 6 miles NW of Stonyford, 5 miles north of Fouts Springs, at 3000 feet elevation, more precipitation up there including snow, but land is more porous; Harding, generally, 5 a-f/acre, 20% conveaynce, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max month, 25 acre-feet for the 4 acres for the season, 6-1/4 a-f max month, .11 s-f diversion, larger useful by rotation, ditch also irrigates E.P RAY lands;
    p. 4090 E.P. RAY NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S10 T18 R7W; opposite Brittan on the west side of North Fork Big Stony? lands similar , 5 acres, more irrigable; alfalfa; ditch originally the Ray ditch which is on the same side of North Fork, extension is the Brittan ditch which is carried across North Fork in a pipe; Harding: 5 a-f/a at land, 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1/4 or 1.55 a-f/a max month, 1/39th s-f/acre, 31 a-f season, 8 a-f max month at .12 s-f, rotation for more, usual 20% transmission loss; RAY owned both places, sold part of it to BRITTAN
    p. 4093 Ida Creek flows year-round
    p. 4093 IRMA I. MOON, no land under ditch, maybe never has been, no proofs except Mr. Purkitt's testimony?, reserved to later; Harding, 8 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1.55 a-f/a max month at 1/39th s-f/a; land in S5, S6, S7 T17N R7W, N 1/2 of NE 1/4, SW 1/4 of NE 1/4, S 1/2 of NW 1/4 & N 1/2 of SW 1/4 S5; N 1/2 SE 1/4 & SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S6; & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S7; [Davis Flat & wrapped arount Fouts Springs on N & W sides?]; traversed by Trout Creek & S. Fork Big Stony; Moon's Exhibit A, copy of patent to one Saunders Gaewood, 1881, S 1/2 NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 S5; S 1/2 NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 S5 of which NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S5 traversed by South Fork Big Stony
    p. 4096 W.A. MORRIS SE 1/4 NW 1/4 & N 1/2 SW 1/4 S32 T18N R7W [NW of Davis Flat towards Happy Camp?], 6.8 acres irrigated is a long triangle, alfalfa, small orchard, some garden; Smoky Creek or Morris Creek [between Trout & Paradise?], to South Fork Big Stony; 17.8 acres more land cleared would be under a ditch extension; pleadings much less, 8 irrigated & irrigable 5 acres? which would make it 6.2 acres more if adhered to the pleadings; small stream, Smoky runs all season; Harding: 5 a-f/a or 6-1/4 at POD, 1.55 a-f/a max month, 43 a-f for 6.8 acres, 10.3 a-f max month at .17 s-f, more by rotation;
    p. 4098 Smoky Creek also KAERTH lands, unknown if by spring or from Smoky Creek
    p. 4099 J. DIEFENBACK [sic] SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S29 T18N R7W [Bonnie View or Happy Camp?] 4-1/2 a irrigated & 6.4 a irrigable under ditch or extensions; alfalfa, small orchard, some garden; Paradise Creek to Middle Fork Big Stony, small stream flows all season; also LOVELACE, HARSHAW & KALLACH lands, DIEFENBACK is above KALLACH & below the others; Harding 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1/4 of 1.55 a-f, season for 4-1/2 acres 28 a-f, 7 a-f max month at .11 s-f which is too small to be economical, more by rotation;
    p. 4101 W.F. FORMAN North Fork Elk Creek, irrigated in SW 1/4 S1 20N R7W, some in each forty except NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S1, 31.4 irrigated plus 18.3 irrigable, diversion in E 1/2 S2 a half mile or so; good ditch 2' wide bottom & 1' deep considerable slope so larger unneeded, alfalfa, grain, small orchard & garden, both sides of the creek by flume to the north side; Harding: 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 diverted, 1.55 a-f/a max month, 196 a-f for 31.4 acres, 49 a-f max month diverted at .80 s-f, 1/39 s-f/acre;
    p. 4103 JAMES O. BRITTAN 10 acres irrigated, alfalfa, some orchard and garden, head probably NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S20 T18N R7W [north side Middle Fork below Mt. St. John road] 1/8 - 1/4 mile ditch; unnamed tributary to North Fork [uh, probably Middle Fork] Big Stony, pleadings named Brittan Creek, apparently a local creek name not a map name, "all these streams flow throughout the year", elev. 3000 feet, Harding, 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f/a max month, 1/39 s-f/acre diversion, 62-1/2 a-f for 10 acres, 15-1/2 max month diversion, .27 s-f, more by rotation; orchard 2 acres & alfalfa 8 acres approximately; Morton: "This is one of three or four instances where Mr. Eriksen was not able to make more than an approximation and I think I shall have it supplemented a little later if permitted to do so."
    p. 4106 L. BEDFORD (Mrs. Bedford), several miles below Little & Big confluence, sheet 3; SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S9, SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S9, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S9 T20N R6W; portion of "irrigated field extends over into another property...in the" NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S9 on J.E. AYER; property; ditch from SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S16 1 mile south, along east bank to the easterly edge of the land; concrete wing dam, ordinary dirt ditch in fair condition, spillway 1/4 mile below dam back to the creek, when not irrigating flow is cut down or reduced, back through the spillway, balance by stock or evaporation about 1 - 1/2 s-f, stock could water from the creek, losses not that great since the land is close to the creek, none into sloughs;
    p. 4109 BICKFORD pump between Bedford diversion and return, 12 acres BICKFORD, 12.1 BEDFORD?, small additional area poor washed gravelly land (on AYERS property) at north end of irrigated field if ditch extended; 10.1 acres BEDFORD 2 AYER, think's there is no contract or arrangement for sharing the ditch, alfalfa "somewhat run out"; Harding, 4 a-f/acre, 25% conveyance, 5.3 a-f/a diversion, 1/4 or 1.3 max month at 1 s-f/46 acres or 1/46th s-f/acre; total diversion 64 a-f, 16 max month .26 s-f diversion , too small for economical head, more by rotation; BEDFORD total 54 a-f, 13-1/2 a-f max month, .22 s-f diversion which is too small, increased by rotating;
    p. 4111 L. HUFFMASTER MAP Exhibit Number 2 [MISSING], S17 T16N R5W unnamed tributary Little Indian Creek , 10 miles S/E of Stonyford, no claim of irrigated land
    p. 4112 Morton [HUFFMASTER]: "I note in this instance that such testimony as was introduced was under Rule 46, under an exception to the ruling of the Master that the testimony was not admissible as not covered by the pleading, the pleading only going to the point of claiming a riparian right for stock water. Such testimony as we might introduce outside of the testimony referring to the riparian right for stock purposes would also be under rule 46 and merely an answer to that introduced in that regard....Under the conditions above stated, then, we will let the further submission of testimony in this regard go over until some later date in the period of rebuttal by the Government."

    p. 4113 M.L. CONKLIN, A. CONKLIN, Wells CONKLIN, Salt Creek a tributary to North or Neuville Fork of Stony Creek; "that makes about four or five tributaries that are called 'Salt Creek' in the watershed." "Q. Do you know whether this is any saltier than the other salt creeks? A. I couldn't say as to that." "Q. The other north fork, if you follow the custom in that country, is called the North Fork of Big Stony Creek? A. Strictly, it is, but Big Stony Creek is frequently called Stony Creek up there and the fork the North Fork of Stony Creek." [ -- 4113-4115 ]
    p. 4114, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S12 T22N R7W, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S7; ditch must divert in NW 1/4 S12, 10 acres irrigated alfalfa, small orchard, garden; Salt Creek, "think flows up to the latter part of the summer, say, in the latter part of August, in ordinary years."; Harding, same as other tracts on the tributaries, 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 diverted, 1.55 a-f max month, 1/39th s-f/acre; 62-1/2 a-f for the 10 acres; 15-1/2 a-f max month, .26 s-f, too small for economical head, larger by rotation [with whom?]
    p. 4115 F.C. WOOD Big Stony several miles above confluence, sheet 13 & 13-A, SE 1/4 NW 1/4 & SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S36 T18N R7W, 8.3 acres irrigated 1917, 1/2 additional irrigable, alfalfa reseeded, other 1/2 acre not irrigated, diversion SW 1/4 NW 1/4 S36, 3/8 mile to along north side of irrigated field thence to LEWIS Ranch; Lewis Ditch, an enlargement/extension of the original Wood ditch; no spillway, no sloughs, irrigation fairly economical; Harding: 4 a-f/acre, 10% conveyance, diversion 4.5 a-f/acre, 1.1 a-f/acre diverted max month at 1/55ths s-f/acre. Total diversion 37 a-f/season 9-1/4 a-f max month, .15 s-f diversion which is too small, more by diversion with LEWIS;

    p. 4119 SATURDAY, 03/29/1924 - 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4119 MARGUERITE W. WELCH, later
    p. 4120 HENRY & MAY WORTH [sic], Little Stony below the reservoir; 1922 irrigating half acre of garden, SE 1/4 NW 1/4 S34 T18N R6W; 4-500 acres hill land with a strip of bottom land in E 1/2 NW 1/4 S34 & NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S34; thinks no irrigation before 1922; Little Stony, at that place, "natural flow is easily exhausted in July sometime" [Mr. Eriksen was not qualified to make that statement because he had never seen or measured the natural flow at that point, only saw it after East Park constructed]; small ditch from NW 1/4 S34, could irrigate more than 1/2 acre through an extension, plus irrigable on other side of the creek, total irrigable 21-1/2 acres additional; Little Stony 2nd or 3rd largest tributary; some wet years flows through the season, but blocked by East Park Reservoir, Werth 3 miles above confluence; additional is irrigable by gravity; Harding, tributary allowance, 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f at diversion, 1/55 a-f max month at 1/39th s-f/acre; total for 22 acres , er, for the half acre 3 a-f, 1/4 or .8 a-f max month diverted at rate of 1/100th s-f which is too small, increased by rotation, actually 1/78th for half an acre "and the nearest hundredth to that is 1/100th", "1/78th is between 1-1/4 hundredths and 1-1/3 hundredths"
    p. 4123 Morton, pass GLENN, SCEARCE, FLANAGAN & KIRKPATRICK, not in shape to handle them.
    p. 4123-4 F.P. MASTERSON North or Neuville Fork, not irrigating at present but has irrigated some, SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S33 T23N R5W, ditch only laterals, supplied by 6" centrifugal pump, 1921 showed evidence of having been irrigated probably the year before, 12 irrigated, 10 more irrigable 3-1/2 miles from Stony Creek; Harding, tributary, 5 a-f/acre reasonable use at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion but by pump so zero conveyance [wrong, pumps into ditch], 1.25 a-f/acre max month at 1/49th s-f/acre; for 12 acres, 60 a-f, 1/4 or 15 a-f max month .25 s-f diversion or too small for economical head, increased by rotation; [-- 4124-4127]
    p. 4125 2 acre garden NW 1/4 S7 T22N R5W, different pump; Harding, 2/49 ths s-f max month, 10 a-f season diverted;
    p. 4126-7 North fork exhausted 06/01 or earlier, but springs in the creek bed at Masterson for a "quarter or half-mile throughout the season", both sites, "A. I have seen the tract and the stream channel at the lower tract and know that water is there throughout the season, evidently spring water." no effect on availability after 06/01 for Project diversion from Stony Creek; "any other water users along that stream besides the Mastersons? A. No."; mentions Comptons [sic], well above

    p. 4128 THURSDAY, 04/03/1924 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4128-9 FOUTS SPRINGS COMPANY and C.H. GLENN, headwaters of Big Stony Creek, land from South Fork, land S32 & 33 T18N R7W, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S32 & SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S33 T17N R7W NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S5 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S4 T17N R7W [& NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S8 [& SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S5; sloppy? mixed up?] all known as "the lower field", one large area, one small area separated by a strip of brush; small area to the west 1 acre, sheet 14; 1917 93.2 acres irrigated, 13.2 in lower field & 80 in upper field; small area 1/2 acre in SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S5 additional irrigable; 2 ditches, lower 3/4 mile from north or left bank of stream at NW 1/4 SE 1/4 S5 NE & N to land along west boundary of irrigated field, dam of dirt, gravel, some timber, no spillway; upper from SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S5 along south or right bank of stream 3/8 mile to irrigated field & along S & W edge of field into laterals, 3' wide bottom & 1-1/2' deep, temporary dam like the other, no spillway, some head all the time for stock, across the road from the creek; ditches well-built; alfalfa, garden; Harding: 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f/acre diversion, 1/55 a-f/acre max month at 1/39th s-f/acre: lower field, 83 a-f total with 1/4 or 21 a-f max month at .35 s-f; upper 80 acres total 500 a-f season with 1/4 or 125 a-f max month or 2.08 s-f, small for actual irrigation & increase by rotation, 20% transmission loss, largest Harding allowance, tributary allowance; not used evaporation or back through very porous soil to the creek
    p. 4137 F.M. KESSELRING sheets 11 & 12, Pearson [ -- 4137-4139]; 2 ditches, other one from Salt Creek; Each 40 NE 1/4 S32 T18N R6W Both 40s W 1/2 S33 [of? p. 4138, of NW 1/4] Both 40s W 1/2 SW 1/4 S28 All 40s SE 1/4 S29 Both 40s S 1/2 SW 1/4 S29 Portion of these from Salt Creek, 61.4 acres total, diversion at NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S5 T17N R6W, from East or right bacnk, 5/8ths of a mile to laterals Both 40s W 1/2 NE 1/4 S32, parts of, [p. 4138] SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S32, some in, [but p. 4139, mostly in the S 1/2 NE 1/4 S32 plus a small portion in NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S32, 61.4 acres [p. 4139, yes these 2 pages contradict]; Salt Creek temporary dam , small ditch, 2-3' wide on bottom & 1 to 1-1/2' deep; p. 4139 Salt Creek exhausted by June or July, probably June; From Big Stony, 229.2 acres, in NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S31 T18N R6W from right or East bank through NW 1/4 S32 NE 1/4 S32 into laterals, into NW 1/4 S33 2 miles long, 1 mile to first lands, also to PEARSON 5/8 mile from diversion, 6' wide bottom 2-4 feet deep, temporary dam of gravel & dirt washes out every year diverts into a channel east side of a small island & ditch takes out at lower end of small island at a permanent heavy gravel dam, timber headgate quite old, several old & leaky timber flumes at WELTON place 1/4 mile from head, another at WELTON 200' further, one 100, other 150', 6' wide & 2' deep; one 100-150' 3-year old steel flume at Salt Creek 3-4' wide semi-circular sections; nearly all alfalfa, some corn, small orchard on PEARSON; in Stonyford, land around Kesselring house about 2 acres, small orchard, some small tracts: Thomas FAIRLEE 1.4 acres alfalfa & garden NE 1/4 NE 1/4 S32; Hotel Block mostly 6.3 acres SUTLIFF, 1 acre Mrs. I.W. McGAHAN, 1.6 acres CATHOLIC CHURCH; NE corner Creamery not irrigated; Q to other lands irrigated under Salt Creek ditch no answer in Tx; one field SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 near schoolhouse not in 1917 but in ????, 18.3 acres, seeded to alfalfa 1918; townsite NOT irrigated 9 acres total, "partly occupied by buildings", highline of ditch crosses southerly portion of that; total irrigated 247.5 acres from Big Stony, total both creeks 308.9 acres; no spillway Stony ditch, kept running but decreased when not irrigating, rotation; Harding: 3 a-f/a, 20% conveyance, 3.75 a-f/a at diversion, .94 a-f/a max month, 1/70th s-f/a, total season for 247-1/2 acres 1248 a-f, 312 a-f max month or 5.2 s-f, hardly enough, augment by rotation; Harding for Salt Creek diversion, part 3 a-f/a & part 5 a-f/a, diversion average for all 5.5 a-f/a, 15% transmission loss, 1/44th s-f/acre, 337 a-f season total for 61.4 acres, 84 a-f max month at 1.4 s-f; also 8 acre area irrigated in 1917 from Salt Creek but not irrigated since;

    p. 4148 THURSDAY, 04/03/1924 1:45 P.M.

    p. 4148 W.T. CLARKE testifies for USA, 1901 USDA, irrigation matters division under Dr. Elwood Mead, for USDA in 1901 examined ditches & irrigated lands on Stony Creek, latter June into July, hot (report at Plaintiff's Exhibit 43)
    p. 4149-52 Mr. Landis, a student assisted; Clarke a specialist in agricultural matters; report from the office of Irrigation Investigation, USDA Bulletin 133; "'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, A.C. True, Director. Report of Irrigation Investigations for 1902 under the direction of Elwood Mead, Chief of Irrigation Investigations' ...'Number Two' ...4th one: ...'Irrigation Systems on Stony Creek, California, by W.T. Clarke and C.W. Landis' ...'Reprint from Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin No. 133'...pp. 151 to 165", "survey of the ditch heads on Stony Creek; also looking at the thing somewhat from the agricultural point of view, determining possible agricultural utility in the region involved; also his request was that numerous pictures should be taken to illustrate for the Department of Agriculture what was being done agriculturally [to p. 4151] in this region." description of work, starting from Central Canal "to hunt up ditch heads where was was [sic] then or had been taken out for irrigation purposes." working westward, found 34,5, or 36 ditch heads, did measurements for cfs, "cross-cut measurement of the size of the ditch at the point where the reading was made. Sometimes a reading was made directly at the head; sometimes when it was obviously impossible to get a correct reading right at the head, we went back a few feet in the ditch itself, where the current was uniform and the size fairly uniform of the ditch itself." interviewed owners, tenants and individuals generally as to the amount of land being irrigated by these ditches, to get some idea of the use of the water....made these acreage studies...without much reference to actual metes and bounds. We had no surveying intruments with us." took many photos, interviewees 60% owners, 40% others; McCutchen: Exhibit 44 [marked as 43 in file]; "amount of crops produced and value thereof was from warehouse receipts at Orland and from interviews with owners, tenants or people hired to run the place." [p. 4154] "Where the ditch heads were located they were quite porour [sic, porous]; they ran through gravel banks and gravel deposits; in certain instances there was more clay in the ground and was better retentive of water but it was rather a slipshod use of water that was made at that time."
    p. 4151-4 --

    p. 4155 E.T. ERIKSEN on KESSELRING continued
    p. 4156-7 9 acres in the townsite not irrigated, 2-3 irrigable, rest covered with buildings? head in ditch diminished when not used for irrigation
    p. 4159 non-Kesselring acreage irrigated from Kesselring Ditch within townsite or close to it, FAIRLEE, CATHOLIC CHURCH, one or 2 others, some 10.3 acreage, 8.9 from one lateral and Fairlee from another, all from Big Stony; Harding: 39 a-f, 9-3/4 a-f max month, .16 s-f diversion, larger head needed by rotation;
    p. 4160 these 10.3 other acres not included in Kesselring figures? Apparently not [?]

    p. 4161 CHARLES E. PEARSON sheet No. 12; each 40 of NW 1/4 S32 T18N R6W, 70.2 acres irrigated from Kesselring Ditch 1/2 mile upstream of Kesselring lands, high water channel touches NW corner Pearson lands, alfalfa, small garden, orchard; Harding: 3 a-f/acre, 3.75 a-f/acre at diversion 20% conveyance, .94 a-f/a max month, 1/70th s-f/acre, total diversion for 70.2 acres 263 a-f, 66 a-f max month, 1.10 s-f, needs more by rotation
    p. 4163 small area of WELTON land from Kesselring ditch, mentioned in Welton land testimony

    p. 4165 FRIDAY, 04/04/1924, 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4165 ERIKSEN on J.W. MILLSAPS, from Hypels Creek tributary of Little Stony 12 acres irrigated in SE 1/4 S16 T17N R6W, diversion from north bank in NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S16 thence 1/8th mile to along upper or west edge of first tract, thence 3/4 mile to last 4 acre tract; temporary dam of rocks; 19.6 acres under ditch so 7.6 irrigable but not irrigated; Hypels ceases sometime in July, else 2 sf or less; Harding, 78 acres could be irrigated, maybe 25 acres irrigable on Millsaps, no prep except for 19.6 acres, alfalfa, garden at about 1300 feet elevation; Harding: 5 a-f/acre, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion w/20% transmission loss 1.55 a-f/a max month, 1/39th s-f/a; total for 12 acres 75 a-f, 18-3/4 a-f diverted max month with .31 s-f diversion; for 19.6 acres 122.5 a-f 31 a-f diverted at .52 s-f, larger flow better but no opportunity for rotation & thus larger diversion should be allowed, occasional wet year flows through the season, Hypels touches the land; on USA Exhibit No. 2, Hypels flows through NW & NE 1/4 of SW 1/4, & NW & NE 1/4 of SE 1/4; Hypels 6 miles long
    p. 4172 Morton: map scales small enough to introduce error in the maps, more accruate in lower reaches "where streams are larger and bench marks and other corners are more readily obtainable".
    p. 4172 C.W. LOVELACE Paradise Creek into Big Stony, 3000 feet el., Paradise "a small stream with a great deal of slope and the flow usually continues throughout the season", 9.7 acres irrigated, some in SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S30 [Bonnie View?] transferred to H.H. HARSHAW; ditches in SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 S30 T18N R7W one from north bank, one from south bank, both about 1/8 mile or less; Harding: 5 a-f/a at land, 6-1/4 a-f/a at diversion, 1.55 a-f.a max month at 1/39 s-f/acre, season total 61 a-f, 15-1/4 a-f max month at .25 s-f; land traversed by Paradise Creek in SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 & SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S30; alfalfa, orchard, garden;
    p. 4175-7 HARSHAW, 5.6 acre tract, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S30, mostly orchard, a separate 1/4 mile ditch, Paradise passes through SW portion of that quarter; Harding: same, 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f/a diversion, 1.55 a-f in max month at 1/39 s-f/a, 9 a-f max month at .15 s-f; surplus from Paradise Creek would run back to the creek
    p. 4178-9 E.C. KAERTH, in SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S32 T18N R7W; 6.5 acres, small ditch 1' or 1-1/2' wide, 1' deep; 1/8 mile Morris Creek, sometimes Smoky Creek, to South Fork Big Stony, small flow all season; Creek also irrigates lands of W.A. MORRIS above KAERTH w/alfalfa, some orchard, garden, 2500 feet el.; Harding: 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f diversion, 1.55 a-f/a max month, 1/39 s-f/a, season total 41 a-f w/10 a-f max month at .17 s-f [are KAERTH & MORRIS mixed up in this testimony?]; sufficient in stream to irrigate 6.5 acres all season, but maybe not as much as it should be;

    p. 4180 C.W. LOVELACE, C.E. KAERTH original defendants; H.H. HARSHAW not;
    p. 4180-1 J.R. & R.P. KENNEDY, 1-1/2 acres irrigated NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S31 T18N R7W, no name spring branch tributary to south side of Smoky Creek or Morris Creek to South Fork Big Stony, flows throughout the season, 2600 or 2700 feet el. more land irrigable but only enough water for 1-1/2 acres; harding: 5 a-f/a & 6-1/4 a-f/a at diversion 1.55 a-f/a max month at 1/39 s-f, season 9 a-f, 2-1/4 a-f max month at .04 s-f;
    p. 4182 W.J. & T.F. LOVELADY, 86.3 acres under 2 ditches, 1200-1300 feet el. on Little Stony, upper field 1-1/2 mile & lower within 1/4 mile of East Park Reservoir; under upper ditch in NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 N 1/2 of SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 S28 T17N R6W; under lower ditch in W 1/2 of NW 1/4 NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 S22 & small part in NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S21; upper ditch 29.3 acres, lower 57 acres; upper diversion in NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 S28 from south bank of stream easterly about 1/2 mile thence easterly about 1/2 miles to irrigated field & continues N/E along S edge of the field to E line S28; diversion for lower ditch near SW quarter S22 from East bank of stream thence N & E about a mile, irrigated 1/4 from diversion extends about 3/4 of a mile w/ditch along eastern boundary

    p. 4185 FRIDAY, 04/04/1924, 1:45 P.M.
    p. 4185 M.E. READY for USA, Civil & Hydraulic Engineer, Pennsylvania State College 1902-06, since mostly irrigation & water supply, with Reclamation for 9 years 06/1907 - 04 or 05/1916, Stony Creek 06/1909 until he left the service;
    p. 4186-7 1911 survey of all irrigated land along Stony Creek & 1 or 2 on Grindstone, located POD w/ref to section corners & located area irrigated & "made a stadia traverse" of it to determine area, took cross section of ditches & in most cases checked slope & current meter measurements, amount diverted not amount used or turned backi, checked in 1912 to see if anything added, stepped it off and estimated; 2 reports 1911 & 1912 describes methods, checked in 1912; from his notes:

    p. 4188 C.H. GLENN, 2 parcels, 54.6 acres upstream & 8.1 acres, drawing #3; 2 ditches; upper measured at the flume, 2' wide & 11" deep; grade .0023, being the drop in feet per hundred feet; lower poor condition, not in use survey party him and a rodman.
    p. 4189 Fred LAUX, 6.2 acres, ditch bottom 2.6' wide, vertical sides, grade .0023, 4' deep at place measured
    p. 4190 TOM FAIRLEE 13-1/2 acres, ditch bottom width 2', side slope 2:1 , grade .0004; J.W. MORRIS, 7.6 acres, ditch bottom width 2.5', side slope 1:1, grade .00016 -- from same ditch ROY WALKUP 6.2 acres & A.T. WELTON 26.9 acres; F.M. KESSELRING ditch 216.3 acres, A.T. WELTON 3.1 acres, F.M. SEIDELL 64.9 acres, Mrs. JOHN MCDANIELS 19.2 acres, I.L. ROBINSON 11.1 acres, various Stonyford lots 10.9 acres, at the flume 5.75' wide, 2.1' deep, grade .0004, flume on main ditch before laterals;
    p. 4191-2 A.D. HICKOK 192.7 acres, Mrs. W.E. WHITCHER 32.3 acres, ditch 6.0' wide bottom, side slopes 1-1/2:1, grade .0027; part of Hickock on Sheet 10 of his maps , E 1/2 S30 T18N R6W , SW 1/4 S29 T18N R6W fence not on section line between him & Whitcher
    p. 4193 J.W. EDWARDS from Little Stony below East Park, 21.1 acres bottom width 1', slopes 1:1, grade .0018; G.D. LEWIS from Big Stony above confluence just below FRED LAUX, 2 parcels from LEWIS & Mr. TAYLOR ditch, Lewis 104.7 acres, LEWIS & TAYLOR ditch replaced HICKOK ditch which LEWIS used only when HICKOK "had no use for the water"; G.D. LEWIS ditch, which could irrigate 160 a for Mr. LEWIS & 80 a for Mr. TAYLOR; new ditch 3' wide bottom, sides 1:1, grade .001 steeper than others so far;
    p. 4194-5 ALEX BROWN 3 ditches: #1 bottom 3', sides 2:1, grade .005; #2 bottom 3' wide, sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0055; #3 bottom 3' wide, sides 1/2:1, grade .0023; from #1 & 2, Mr. BROWN irrigqated 80.6 acres, #3 163.3 acres & Mrs. J. O'LEARY irrigated 11.1 acres;
    p. 4195 S.F. PAINE bottom width 2', sides 1-1/2:1, grade .001, irrigated 59.5 acres from Big Stony right at the junction; J.N. LOGAN measured at the flume, width 2.5', depth .86, grade .0015, 59.8 acres irrigated on Map 16 in NW 1/4 S11 T18N R6W; HARMON bottom 3.5 wide, sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0005, area irrigated 14.3 acres, from Stony Creek below the junction;
    p. 4196 A.L. TRIPLETT bottom 6', sides 1:1, grade .0005, area irrigated 18.5 maybe; J.H. SOETH bottom 3' wide, sides vertical, grade .0006, 19.2 acres; J.E. KNIGHT bottom 3', sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0006, area irrigated 48.1 acres, JOHN JOHANSEN 2 ditches #1 not in use in 1911, 5.2 acres, #2 bottom 5 feet wide, sides 1:1, grade .0003, area irrigated 39.1 acres; via JOHANSSEN ditch I.E. TRUE 44 acres;
    p. 4197-8 W.L. CARNES, bottom 2' wide, sides 1:1, grade .0042, area irrigated 23.4 acres; C.T. WHITE, bottom width 2.5', sides 1-1/2:1; grade .0004; area irrigated 23 acres in 2 different sections NE 1/4 S27 (changed from S28?) T20N R6W & small point in SW 1/4 S27; W.W. GATLIFF bottom width 4', sides 2:1, grade .0001, area irrigated 26.4 acres; M. FRIDAY, bottom width, 3' sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0001, irrigated by M. FRIDAY 7.8 acres, by J.S. WEST 8.3 acres; by J. TROXEL 12 acres; by N. Providence [sic] 2.4 acres or might be Provence; another area also irrigated by Mr. PROVIDENCE by pump
    p. 4198-9 M. FRIDAY in W 1/2 NE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W & PROVIDENCE or PROVENCE in W 1/2 same quarter as FRIDAY map #27; PROVENCE pump downstream of FRIDAY ditch, PROVIDENCE land irrigated by pump "much higher than either one of the other pieces & is in the W 1/2 of NE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W & a portion in W 1/2 SE 1/4 S9 T20N R6W, 10.3 acres;
    p. 4199 M.G. BEDFORD bottom width 2.5', sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0001, area irrigated 8.9 acres; E.E. SMITH by pump, 3.8 acres; G.C. ELLIS 2 ditches from Grindstone Creek, #1 bottom 2' wide, sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0005, area irrigated 6.2 acres, #1 is furthest upstream; #2, bottom 4.5' wide, sides 1-1/2:1, grade .0005, area irrigated 16.3 acres;
    p. 4200 A.T. MOORE condition too poor to make measurements, 39.3 acres irrigated, also used a 6" centrifugal pump on 2 acre;

    p. 4200 Mr. READY MEASUREMENT STANDARDS: "...I tried to take some place where the water was moving along uniformly, so that I could catch the slope of the ditch and its effect on the quantity of water the ditch would carry. Most of the ditch[es?] were very irregular; in some places there would be stagnant water and in some places the water would be rushing through narrow places."

    p. 4201 moving on to his 1912 survey:
    p. 4201 FRED LAUX no change; TOM FAIRLEE increase of .5 of an acre; J.W. MORRIS no change; ROY WALKUP no change; A.T. WELTON increase of .5 of an acre; F.M. KESSELRING increase 1 acre; A.T. WELTON from KESSELRING ditch no change; PEARSON which was the SEIDELL ranch; FOUTS SPRINGS; here on, lands with changes only : Brown - Sutliff, 28 acres increase;
    p. 4202 J.D. LEWIS 2 acre increase, W.S. TAYLOR 20 acre increase; Mrs. J. O'Leary 3 acre increase; A.J. TRIPLETT 7 acre increase; JAMES HARMON 17 acre increase; A.L. TRIPLETT 4 acre increase; I.E. TRUE 7 acre increase; I. SKIDMORE 3 acre increase; J. VAN SCYOC 4 acre increase, W. DREW 4.5 acre increase; last 3 not on 1911 report;
    p. 4202 Both surveys admitted plaintiff's 45 & 46

    p. 4203 some measurements in the 1911 report from records of 1906 & 1909; 1909 measurements by Mr. Tillinghast & Mr. Johnson at East Park, doesn't know who did the 1906 measurements;
    p. 4204-5 Mr. GLENN, JAMES HARMON one or two parces irrigated 1910 or prior but not 1911; some lands "apparently had been irrigated a long time previously which I did not include. The ditches were in such conditions that they could not carry water and could not apparently for a number of years and I didn't include those parcels." JAMES HARMON 1911 14.3 acres, recall that was the land irrigated in 1911 - a parcel further downstream "that had been irrigated apparently many years previously. The flules were all rotted and fallend own and the ditch was overgrown and overrun and in such condition that it was evident that it had not been irrigated for a number of years--probably ten years....a small parcel" 1912 report showed 17 additional acres, area of the old ditch? "probably"; "observe there as a fact that a good many of those irrigated ranches only irrigated a part of their irrigated land in 1911, for instance, and then in 1912 you found some other parts of it also irrigated? A. ...practically all of them could have irrigated more land from their ditches than what was irrigated, but in 1912 the same area was irrigated with the exception of the additions I have added on as an addition in 1912."
    p. 4206 1912 "talked to all of them...don't believe I saw MR. MOORE"
    p. 4207 MR. GLENN [what? measured his small parcel not irrigated in 1912 but irrigated 1 or 2 years previous?]

    p. 4208 E.T. ERIKSEN recalled, continuing,
    p. 4208-9 LOVELADY, alfalfa, small orchard, garden; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land & 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max month at 1/39th s-f/acre; total under upper ditch for season of 183 a-f with 46 a-f max month at .77 s-f; lower ditch 356 a-f, 89 a-f max month, 1.48 s-f; only one upstream from East Park on Little Stony but not on a tributary, flow usually exhausted June; 86.3 acres irrigated under the 2 ditches; stream flows through NE 1/4 SW 1/4 S27, S 1/2 NE 1/4 S27, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 S21, NE 1/4 SE 1/4 S21, E 1/2 NE 1/4 S21; irrigated lands all drain into Little Stony;
    p. 4210 ANNIE EVANS LOVELADY, headwaters of Little Stony SE 1/4 NE 1/4 S21 T16N R7W, irrigated 5.5 acres; 3-4000 feet el., steep, Cold Creek to Little Stony, a small flow probably not more than 1 s-f, flows throughout season, map Exhibit 2; Harding: 5 a-f at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max month at 1/39th s-f/acre; total season for 5.5 acres 34 acre-feet, 8-1/2 a-f max month at .14 s-f; land traversed or touched by Cold Creek [from spring, tributary to Trout Creek?]; in 2 small tracts, maybe 2 ditches, one close to the creek one farther away, runoff drains back to the creek; 3 acres under one, 2-1/2 under the other, Harding for each: 3 acres: 20 a-f, 5 a-f max month, .08 s-f/acre; 14 a-f for 2-1/2 acres, 3-1/2 a-f max month, .06 s-f, or maybe 4 a-f max month at .06 s-f. Correction for 2-1/2 acres: 15.6 a-f, 4 a-f in max month at .06 s-f.
    p. 4213-4 JOHN M. ADAMS Trout Creek to Little Stony, W 1/2 SE 1/4 S16 T16N R7W, 7.6 acres plus 1.1 acre irrigable, alfalfa, orchard, small garden; ditch from Trout Creek SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S16 thence northeasterly 1/4 mile continuous flow throughout season probably not more than 1 s-f & more in spring or during snow melt, 3000 feet el.; Harding, 5 a-f/a at land, 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1.55 a-f/a max month at 1/39th s-f/acre; total diversion 48 a-f, 12 a-f max month @ .20 s-f, for 8.7 acres under ditch or irrigable 54 a-f season, 13.5 a-f max month at .23 s-f;
    p. 4214-5 DORA A. FENDER Indian Creek above East Park, S25 T17N R6W, 1920 survey 10.2 acres irrigated, plus 10 acres on opposite side of stream irrigable, flows to some time in June, before flow stops a month or two with only 2 or 3 s-f; 10 are nearly level bottom land, 10.2 are similar; one ditch POD NW 1/4 NW 1/4 S36 thence north about 1/4 mile to land & north along west edge of irrigated land 1/4 mile, traversed by Indian Creek in W 1/2 SW 1/4 S25 & SE 1/4 NW 1/4 S25 [stream misplaced on map.htm ?]; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max month at 1/39th s-f/acre, for 10.2 acres total 64 a-f w/16 a-f in max month at .27 s-f; by dam in the ditch [in the stream?] or pumped in some years, 1921 pump in place & ditch was there w/head somewhat washed out, "no irrigation during that year because the flow had ceased very early in the season. That was an extremely dry year."
    p. 4218-9 J.F. STITES Indian Creek, 1-1/4 or 1-1/2 mile upstream from FENDER; 1920 11 acres irrigated land, no other; ditch in NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S2 T16N R6W runs NE 3/4 mile to N line S2 & along westerly or northerly side of irrigated field; pleadings claim from Little Indian Creek, but land traversed by Indian Creek; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1.55 a-f/acre max month with diversion 1/39 s-f; season diverion 69 a-f, 17-1/4 a-f max month at .29 s-f;
    p. 4219 Morton: "objection to showing a riparian claim, that Indian Creek traveses certain subdivisions of the Stites land, on the ground that it is at variance with the pleadings and therefore irrelevant and incompetent." McCutchen: "ruling will be reserved"; irrigated land in both 40s of E 1/2 NW 1/4 S2 & NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S2
    p. 4220 same objection, same reservation; stream flows through each of these 40s;
    p. 4220-1 RUFUS G. STITES Line Creek to Little Stony, 3.3 acres irrigated in 1921, small ditch from stream in NW 1/4 SW 1/4 S8 thence 1/4 mile NE to irrigated tract; orchards, alfalfa, garden, 3000 ft. el., small flow throughout season, "probably less than a second foot during the summer." Harding: 5 a-f/a at land, 6-1/4 a-f at POD w/1.55 a-f/a max month at k/39th [sic] s-f/acre; season total 21 a-f, 5-1/4 a-f in max month at .09 s-f; E.C. PHELPS downstream user of this stream
    p. 4221 Goulding Creek? No, Driscoll lands, testifying for Driscoll;
    p. 4222 McCutchen: "no other land there susceptible of irrigation," considered susceptible? A. "no other land cleared under the ditch", could be cleared & irrigated from another ditch. [start over? "susceptible" is not susceptible if his explanation is correct]; thinks slope on other uncleared land not too steep for irrigation, but not enough supply; "...one of the stream, a type of which occurs very often in the watershed--in the upper part of it--where the flow is so small that you can't get over very much land at all? A. The usual practic there is to keep the stream running all the time in the ditch and turn it from one part of the field to the other, [to p. 4223] and if there is no part of the field that needs the water it has a very short distance to go down to the stream again on account of the steep slopes and small fields....in the latter months, the flow would be approximately" 1/2 s-f; "One reason is that it is not a sufficient irrigation head...water enough to irrigate a little more land but it has not been irrigated."

    p. 4223-4 "MR. RANKIN: Q. Mr. Eriksen, in the latter months of the season, when you say there is only approximately a half a second foot of water running in that stream, if that water were not used for irrigation on this land, what would become of it? A. It would go on down the stream into Little Stony; at greater or less [to p. 4223] distances in Little Stony it would sink into the gravel. Q. At that time it would not reach the reservoir at all? A. It would not. Q. Then if it were not used on this land or adjoining land, it would go to waste; it would go into the ground? A. Yes. [but it does become underflow, which now goes into East Park but used to sub-irrigate before the dam?]
    p. 4224-5 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION; MR. MORTON: Q. Does this same thing apply, Mr. Eriksen, to Line Creek? A. This is Line Creek. Q. Well, Indian Creek? A. Just what do you mean? Q. You have answered in the affirmative, or at least answered Mr. Rankin's last question that the water used would not reach the reservoir, but would sink into the ground--would be dissipated away, in other words. Now is that true of Indian Creek? A. yes; [sic] no water reaches the reservoir in Indian or Little Stony after some time in June. Q. But there is water up above there? A. Yes, that is true there. Q. When this water sinks into the gravel, does it reach the reservoir or does it reach some other place, or does it evaporate away, or what becomes of it? A. It evidently sinks into the stream bed some miles above the reservoir. Q. And you assume that it does not reach the reservoir; you are fairly well satisfied that none of it reaches the reservoir? A. I was referring to the surface flow of the stream. MR. RANKIN: Q. In all probability, the water would not reach the reservoir in that distance? [to p. 4225] A. That is true; it would go down and contribute to form the ground water that is under the ground at all times. MR. MORTON: Q. Of course, I understand, Mr. Eriksen, that you haven't investigated this feature of it, but just from your own knowledge what becomes of this water when it goes down there; as a contribution to the ground water does that mean that it reappears in some fashion to the reservoir or is it lost to the reservoir? A. I think it is lost to the reservoir. Q. What other creeks that we have been dealing with this afternoon have a similar situation--just Little Stony and Line Creek? A. Yes. Q. How about Cold Creek? A. It has the same situation; and in regard to that point the question would be perhaps to quite an extent whether or not the water was allowed to go down the stream and sink into the stream bed or whether it was put onto the fields and a portion of it sink into the ground and a portion used by the plants; in one case it all sinks into the ground and in the other case a portion of it sinks into the ground." [underflow or ground? neither proven]

    p. 4226 SATURDAY, 04/05/1924, 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4226-7 J.H. DRISCOLL North Fork Big Stony, map Exhibit 2, S 1/2 SW 1/4 S10, W 1/2 NW 1/4 S15, all S16 T18N R7W, another [3rd?] Trout Creek? Mr. STITES of the Forest Service testified previously for Mr. DRISCOLL; Harding: for 6 acres, 5 a-f/a at the land, 6-1/4 a-f/acre at diversion, 1/4 o4 1.55 a-f/a max month at 1/39th s-f/a; total for season 37-1/2 a-f, 9.4 a-f max month at .16 s-f;
    p. 4228 3000 ft. el., flow throughout season, 5 s-f low flow during latter part of summer
    p. 4228-9 traversed by South Fork [error?, s/b North Fork?]; SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S10, & both 40s of W 1/2 NW 1/4 S15; Eriksen never inspected this land and doesn't know if Harding did;

    p. 4229-32 TIM O'LEARY, represented by Brown & Albery, Mr. Brown sent a letter & McCutchen phoned him, not expect to appear further and suggest Morton proceeds with any rebuttal; Indian Creek 5 acres in SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S7 T16N R6W; maybe 10 acres more irrigable if cleared, prepared and water supply sufficient; Indian Creek ceases to flow in June, except for a very wet year when may continue throughout the season, previous to June adequate for 10 acres; 10 s-f May 1st decreasing to zero sometime in June; 1300 feet el.; alfalfa, small garden; small ditch 1-1/2 foot wide on bottom, 1 foot deept, POD S 1/2 SE 1/4 S3 or SE 1/4 S3 1/4 S3, thence easterly along S side of creek 1/4 mile to land & east along S side of irrigated land, total ditch 1/2 mile; Harding: 5 a-f/a at land, 6-1/4 a-f/a at POD, 1.55 a-f max month, 1/39th s-f/a; total for season 31 a-f, 7.8 a-f max month at .13 s-f; [McCutchen asked:] but for 10 acres claimed, total 62-1/2 a-f, 1/4 or 15.6 a-f max month at .26 s-f;

    p. 4232 [McCutchen:] "Q. Now, you say that this stream sinks into the ground or dries up about June, ordinarily? A. Yes, about June, ordinarily. Q. Would that same statement that you made about the use of this water on the other small tributaries be applicable here? A. You mean, that it sinks into the ground is lost [sic] to the reservoir? Q. Yes. A. That is correct. Q. Now, Mr. Eriksen, you say that in some years, when water is unusually plentiful, that this stream flows throughout the irrigation season? A. Yes, I think that in an occasional wet year it will flow throughout the season. Q. In those years there is an ample supply of water for everyone, everywhere, isn't there? A. Yes. Q. So that to allow this man to use all the water that he required for 10 acres during one of these wet years, would not deprive anyone in the watershed of the water? A. No, it would not. [to p. 4233] THE MASTER: I think that is all. FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION MR. MORTON: Q. However, if this man, for instance, was allowed for 10 acres, and a hundred other men were allowed water for a certain acreage, that would decrease the amount of water that was available in the watershed, would it not, Mr. Eriksen? A. Yes. Q. And would change the whole character of the available supply for the users in the watershed, would it not? A. Yes. Q. Would there be any way of distinguishing between a very wet and a medium wet year and a slightly wet year, as far as the use on any 10 acres or 100 acres, is concerned? A. I don't know. What I had in mind was that in this very wet year, the reservoir is filled before the beginning of the irrigation season, but any water that ran into the reservoir afterwards would be either evaporated or go over the spillway. Q. In the summer time, any use of water above would directly affect those who were dependent on the low summer flow, even in a high year? A. Yes. What I had in mind was that in such years--those high years--there is plenty of water for all the land that is irrigated. Q. Even in the middle of the summer? A. Yes. Q. Do you mean to say that if everyone that had land that was irrigable in the watershed, who had not theretofor irrigated land, but would now use water, that there would be plenty in the summer in a wet year? A. No, this question was in regard to these 10 acres. [to p. 4234] Q. Those particular 10 acres? A. That is what I was answering. Q. You are not increasing it a great many thousand other 10 acres? A. No, indeed."

    p. 4234 reviewing Professor W.T. CLARKE's testimony, Exhibit 43, ditch name changes:
    - STONY CREEK IRRIGATING COMPANY - same;
    - SCEARCE and HALL ditch - same;
    - LEMON HOME DITCH - same;
    - W.B. MILLER ditch now MALLON and BLEVINS ditch;
    - I.W. BROWNELL ditch - not been in use since 1904;
    - JULIAN ditch not in use for a great many years, now owned by HARDINS;
    - ELLIS ditch now known as J.T. EDWARDS ditch used by EDGAR HUNTER and J.T. EDWARDS;
    - E.E. SMITH ditch used by E.E. SMITH;
    - TRUE ditch now the NEISEN ditch;
    - BAYLOR ditch now owned by J.E. AYER and has not been in use for a great many years;
    - BEDFORD ditch still owned by the BEDFORDS;
    - FRIDAY ditch mentioned as the TROXEL ditch and the successor of H.C. ANGLE;
    - WEST ditch an extension of the FRIDAY ditch so FRIDAY ditch & WEST ditch now known as the TROXEL ditch or ANGLE and TROXEL ditch;
    - GATLIFF ditch owned by GATLIFF;
    - WHITE ditch now MANSON & ANDERSON ditch and is on GOLLNICK property but not used since 1916 - GOLLNICK uses BAILEY ditch;
    - BAILEY ditch called WILLIAM TROXEL ditch;
    - J. JOHANSEN ditch is the JOHANSEN west side ditch;
    - LORENZ ditch now known as the JOHANSEN East Side Ditch;
    - FRUTO LAND & IMPROVEMENT ditch not used for about 20 years;
    - CARVER ditch now J.E. KNIGHT ditch;
    - SOETH ditch is the same;
    - WALKER ditch practically all washed out, now only a trace;
    - HADDOCK ditch now Abe L. TRIPLETT ditch;
    - W.A. MCKAIG ditch now the HARMON ditch;
    - ZUMWALT ditch now the WAKEFIELD ditch;
    - JOHN MCDANIEL ditch now the PAINE ditch;
    - MONTGOMERY ditch now the ELIZABETH ROGERS ditch;
    - BROWN Number One ditch [upper ditch] in testimony as POLLEY ditch;
    - BROWN Number Two ditch [lower ditch] same;
    - STONY CREEK IMPROVEMENT COMPANY ditch now the KESSELRING ditch;
    - HICKOK and POLLY Heirs ditch now the SUTLIFF ditch;
    - WILLIAM MORRIS ditch now the FAIRLEE ditch, used by W.H. STITES;
    - MORRIS-WELTON ditch is the same;
    - FRED LAUX ditch taken over by LEWIS BROTHERS;
    - LAUX lands now owned by F.C. WOOD and watered from LEWIS ditch;
    - J.R. DAVIS & BROTHER ditch now lower FOUTS SPRINGS ditch;
    - FOUTS SPRINGS MILL CREEK ditch not in existence;
    - FOUTS SPRINGS ditch now the FOUTS SPRINGS UPPPER ditch;

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, vol. 23 pp 4238 - 4392 [ index-4332,4335,4346-4351,4388-4392]
    Tuesday, 06/03/1924
    Wednesday, 06/04/1924
    Thursday, 06/05/1924
    Friday, 06/05/1924
    Saturday, 06/07/1924

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

    IN BEHALF OF UNITED STATES

    Witnesses called:
    E.T. Eriksen
    Case of Defendant EDWARDS D 4240
    " MALLON D 4245
    " STEWART D 4247
    R.C.E. Webber [sic] D 4250
    E.T. Eriksen, CUSHMAN D 4252
    J.B. Morrissey D 4256, X 4258, RD 4260
    E.T. Eriksen D 4260, X 4263, RD 4264
    " , HUNTER D 4264
    C.L. Johnson D 4266, X 4269, RD 4270
    Phillip Bollinger D 4270
    E.T. Eriksen D 4273
    " , MOON D 4273
    " , BRITTAN D 4276
    " , BROWNELLS D 4279, X 4298, RD 4309
    S.G. Bennett D 4311, X 4323, RD 4327
    R.C.E. Webber [sic] D 4328, X 4331
    E.T. Eriksen D 4332
    " , BRITTAN D 4332
    " , BROWN D 4333
    " , CHASTAIN D 4334
    " , CONKLIN D 4335
    " , ELLIS D 4336
    " , GATLIFF D 4339
    " , HARMON D 4340
    " , HUFFMASTER D 4341
    " , JOHANSEN D 4341
    " , KAERTH D 4343
    " , KIMEL D 4343
    " , KNIGHT D 4344
    " , KESSELRING D 4346, D 4354
    " , PEARSON D 4351
    " , MOON D 4356
    " , ADAMS D 4358
    " , AYER D 4359
    " , DRISCOLL D 4365
    " , FENDER D 4366
    " , KENNEDY D 4368
    " , LOVELACE D 4369
    " , LOVELADY (W.J. & F.F.) D 4371
    " , LOVELADY (A.E.) D 4373
    " , MARKHAM D 4374
    " , MILLSAPS D 4375
    " , PHELPS D 4377
    " , RIDLEY D 4379
    " , SOERTH D 4380
    " , STITES (J.F.) D 4382, X 4383
    " , STITES (R.G.) D 4384
    " , TRUE D 4385
    " , WOOD D 4387
    R.W. GRAVES D 4388

    Afternoon Session, 06/03/1924 p. 4239
    Morning Session, 06/04/1924 p. 4256
    Afternoon Session, 06/04/1924 p. 4272
    Morning Session, 06/05/1924 p. 4311
    Afternoon Session, 06/05/1924 p. 4332
    Morning Session, 06/06/1924 p. 4346
    Afternoon Session, 06/06/1924 p. 4358
    Morning Session, 06/07/1924 p. 4384

    p. 4238 TUESDAY, 06/03/1924, 10:00 A.M.
    p. 4238 no defendant attorneys present, adjourn to afternoon

    p. 4239 TUESDAY, 06/03/1924, 1:00 P.M.
    p. 4239 George Freeman now attorney of record for defendants represented by his father , Frank Freeman , except for C.L. SIMPSON; ERIKSEN recalled;
    p. 4240 J.W. EDWARDS, SW 1/4 NW 1/4 & NW 1/4 SW 1/4 & portion in SW 1/4 SW 1/4 S22 T18N R6W, map sheet 13; small strip of land in S21 on that map is not part of the Edwards holdings but it is part of one of the EDWARDS fields in that it's dependent on the same ditch, "Mr. EDWARDS supposed that was part of his land when he first irrigated it", the piece being in NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S21 "directly to the west of the EDWARDS property and labeled 'Garden', about 1-1/2 acre; Edwards holdings irrigated land 22.8 acres including that 1-1/2 acres; 2 acres in north portion also irrigable; POD SE 1/4 SW 1/4 S22 near center of that 40 thence northwesterly, branches near NW 1/4 [corner?] SE 1/4 SW 1/4 branches & a flume crosses the creek, carrying the water to the east side of the creek, thence northerly along the east boundary of the irrigated field; Harding: 5 a-f/acre at land, conveyance 15%, 5.9 a-f/acre at diversion, 1/4 or 1-1/2 a-f max month at 1/40th s-f/acre; for 22.8 acres, 135 a-f w/34 a-f max month at .57 s-f diversion; "Mr. EDWARDS probably uses about 2 second feet for his irrigation head and rotates in connection with other water uses."
    p. 4243 J.F. MALLON or MALLON & BLEVINS sheet 15; S31, S32, S29 T23N R4W; 31.3 acres irrigated in 2 fields: 5 acres S 1/2 NE 1/4 S31 - no, change that - SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S31; other 26.3 acre field in S 1/2 SW 1/4 S29 in each of the 40s; 8 acres irrigable but not irrigated, had been irrigated, plus 6.1 acres under ditch for 14.1 total under ditch but not irrigated; since 1918 only the 5 irrigated; 5 by pumping & larger by ditch; pumped at west bank near E line of SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S31, 300' pipe to a ditch which irrigates the 5 acres, alfalfa, garden, some orchard; ditch in SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S31 thence NE into SW 1/4 S29 dividing into laterals for the larger field; Harding: 4 a-f/a at land, zero conveyance loss for pump, 4 a-f/a for 5 acres, 1 a-f/a max month at 1/60 s-f; 20 a-f season total with 1/4 or 5 a-f max month at .08 s-f, pump discharges 1.1 s-f, secured by rotation; ditch: 4 a-f/a 20% conveyance or 4.6 a-f/a diversion,