PAGE 1 Show Image
2
4
S Siskiyou County Comprehensive
6
7 Land & Resource
8
9 Management Plan
PAGE 2 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 2
I Table of Contents
2
3 S[SKJYOU COUNTY COMPR~HENS[VE LAND & RBSOURC~ MANAGEMENT PLAN 4
4 PART 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 4
5 PARTI[ E~MPLES 5
6 PART IH. GENERAL PROCESSEs, METHODS AND GOA[£ OF AN ANALYS[S BY AGENCIES 6
7 APPENDIX 1 REGULATIONS. JuRlSD1~QN AND COORDINATfON I 1
8 SISKIYOU COUNTY & THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: 12
9 JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING: 15
10 THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT: 16
1 1 US FOREST SERV[CE LAND & RESOURCE PLANNINGINEPA PROCESSES: 17
12 US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND & RESOURCE PLANNINGINEPA PROCESSES: 18
13 SISKIYOU COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & REVIEW: 20
14 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 21
15 CALIFORNYA ADMINISTRATIVE ACT 21
16 APPENDIX 2 CUSTOM AND CULTURE 24
1 7 IDENTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION OF CUSTOMS AND CULTURE 26
18 OVERV[EW AND DEFINING OF CUSTOMS AND CULTURE 26
19 APPENDIX 3 CUSTOMS AND CULTURE MINING IN S[SKIYOU COUNTY 28
20 APPENDIX 4 CUSTOM AND CULTURE AGRICULTURE SUMMARY 31
21 APPENDIX S CUSTOMS AND CULTURE FARMING 33
22 HISTORICALNOTES:
33
23 EARLY RECLAMATION EFFORTS: 36
24 HISTORICAL STATICS: 37
25 "RIGffr TO FARM ORDINANCE": 38
26 GENERAL CQNSIDERATIONS: 38
27 SOIL CffARACTERI~CS: 38
28 CLIMIMAJIC CIIARACTERI~CS: 40
29 WATER AVAILABILITY: 40
30 APPENDIX 6 CUSTOMS AND CIJL1~JRE RANCHING AND DAIRY 48
3 1 SISKIYOU COUNTY RISTOR~CAL NOTES: 48
32 IIISTORICAL STATISTICS: 53
PAGE 3 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 3
l CONSTITUTION OF THE SISKIYOU COUNTY STOCK PROTECTWE
2 ASSOCYNTION 57
3 RANCHING TRADITIONS OF ALTA CALIFORNIA 59
4 HISTORY OF THE "PUBLIC LANDS" GRAZ[NG SYSTEM 61
5 APPENDIX 7 CUSTOMS AND CULTURE WATER US~ 66
6 HISTORY 66
7 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE: 88
8 WATER USE IN GOLD MINING 97
9 WATER LAW PRINCIPLES 103
10 APPENDIX 8 CUSTOMS AND CULTURE FORESTS AND FOREST PRODUCTS 114
Ii ADDENDUM 116
12 REFERENcES 120
13 APPEND[)( 9 CUSTOMS AND CULI~JRE- RECREATION AND TOURISM 121
14 BACKGROUND 121
1 S HIKING1CLIMBING~AND RECREATIONAL SNOW ACTIvITIES 121
16 FISHING 121
17 CAMPING AND HUNTING 122
I 8 APPENDIX 10 CUSTOMS AND CULThRE TRANSPORT~ON AND RIGHTS-OFWAY125
19 BACKGROUND: 125
20 DEF~ON OF A "HIGIIWAY": 128
21 ABANDONMENT & STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE: 129
22 HISTORIC REFERENCE TO OLD ThAILS, ROADS AND RAII~ROADS IN
23 SISKWOU COUNTY 130
24 END NOTES 142
25
26
PAGE 4 Show Image
Si&kiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 199G page 4
2 Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land &
Resource Management Plan
4
5 Part 1. Introduction And Statement Of Purpose
6
7 The management and regulatory actions of federal and State agencies ~vi thin
8 Siskiyou County have a profound impact on the citizens of this county. The
9 Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California
10 provide for a republican form of representative government with specific
I I limitations and separations on the governing powers of federal and State bodies
12 of government and the executive, legislative and judicial branches therein; as in
13 respect to one another and to the people in which sovereign power resides. The
14 limited power of government in relationship to the individual citizen is
l 5 expressed, in parts by the recognition of certain rights as inalienable by
16 governance and the enumeration of specific guarantees of protection in regards
17 tomanyothers.
18
19 The duly elected Board of Supervisors of the County is empowered by the
20 citizens of Siskiyou County with adrniriistering the general law of California in
21 respect to the "police powers'1 of regulation in regard to the public health1
22 safety, welfare and morals within the territonal bdundaries of the County and
23 in accordance with a sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the
24 United States. As such, the Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou County embodies
25 the convergence of both generally and specifically delegated authority and the
26 poh.tical jurisdiction to represent the interests of the citizens of Siskiyou
27 County in the administration of civil governance by all agencies affecting
28 citizen actions as well as individual rights within the territorial boundaries of
29 Siskiyou County.
30
3 1 The National Environmental Policy Act and the many other federal and state
32 laws creating agencies, as well as authorizing the agencies to manage and
33 regulate resources, require that the agencies consult and coordinate with the
34 County in decision making when proposing actions that have physical1 sodal or
35 economic irnpacts on the County or its dtizens. In discharging its
36 responsibilities in this regard, the Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou County
37 recognizes vaijous ctiltural populations within the boundaries of the County
38 that are distinct from one another, yet linked in identity by customs, social
39 communities, lifestyles, values arid institutions; and defined largely by common
40 resources-based economic activity that warrant specific consideration ill agency
41 decision mal~ng processes.
42
43 The Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan~seeks
44 to describe these distinct cultural populations in terms of common actions,
45 economic enterprises and uses of real and personal property as exist within the
46 : boundaries' of Siski
you County. The purpose of such description is to advise
47 federal afrd state agendes of the existence of these cultural populations and the
48 need to protect, conserve and enhance the cultural and economic diversity
49 within the County and to take no actions which dimimsh, or tend to djmir~~sh
so the political and legislative jurisdiction of the State of California or the County
PAGE 5 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 5
I of Siskiyou in the civil governance of its citizens in regard to the interests of
2 the health1 safety1 welfare or morals of its citizens and the general prosperity of
3 its communities and the county as a whole.
4
5 Accordingly1 the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou declares that it
6 is the policy of the county to require each and eves federal (see Appendix I)
7 and state1 agency ad.m~stenng, managing or regulating lands or natural
8 resources within the county to fully coordinate with the county at the initiation
9 and throughout the planning process1 whenever proposed plans, actions,
10 regulations, restrictions or establishment of productivity levels are being
II considered.
12
13 Furthermore1 the County of Siskiyou has adopted Resolution No. 93-2-84, which
14 provides for County participation in environmental review and coordination
15 when federal and state agencies are proposing actions within the County which
16 affect or may affect a wide range of County and citizen interests.
17
18 Part II Examples
19
20 Examples of an agency and/or regulatory entity actions or undertakings that
21 invoke, or may invoke consideration of this plan, including1 but not limited to
J 22 the~following:
23
24 1. Federal: Proposed National Forest Management Plans and Bureau of Land
25 Management Plans or changes thereto, including the setting of timber harvest
26 levels; changes in policies regarding salvage of dying and dead timber;
27 changes in grazing fees and policies; changes in in~g policies; proposed
28 changes to tribal trust lands; changes in percentage of forest receipts to the
29 county as in lieu payments; proposed additions to wilderness areas and wild,
30 scenic and recreational rivers; proposed creation of natural areas; proposed
3 1 creation or designation of historic areas; proposed land exchanges; proposed
32 purchases of private land; proposed changes in habitat requirements for
33 endangered, threatened and sensitive species; proposed additions to wildlife
34 areas; proposed changes to access to public lands; proposed changes in
35 wetlands arid riparian designation and management; proposed biological
36 surveys; proposed National Parke and Monuments; proposed reallocation of
37 water resources.
38
39 2. State Agencies: Proposed changes in regional water p1~S; proposed changes
40 in wildlife habitat requirements; proposed changes m etidangered1
41 threatened ai'd sensitive species designation; proposed changes in game and
42 fish species designation and management; proposed changes in lists of
43 beneficial uses of water; proposed changes in dassification of navigability of
44
streams; proposed changes in pesticide regulations; proposed changes in
45 Forest practices regulations; proposed changes in mining and redamation.
46 regulatiQns; proposed changes in air quality regulations; proposed
47 designation of wildlife preserves; proposed changes in stream discharge
48 requirements; proposed changes in stream bed & bank alteration
I California Envirnnment~1 ()ii~1itv Act: C~1iforni~ Adniini~tr~tiv~ Proc~~4~ire~ Act ~nd otb~r ~
PAGE 6 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 6
l requirernents; proposed additions to wiid~ scenic and recreational rivers;
2 proposed changes in water management practices on agricultural lands;
proposed land exchanges; proposed water diversions and/or well drilling for
4 state purposes; proposed purchases of private land, proposed State Parks and
S Monuments; proposed reallocation and/or export of water
6
7
8 Pad IlL General Processes, Methods And Goals OfAn Analysis By
9 Agencies
l0
I I Plans or actions by agency1 inter-agency or other decision-makirig groups shall
12 contain information and discussion to facilitate a coordinated plam~g effort
13 between the agency and county government. Participation by the county in
14 multi-interest plann'ng1 advisory or decisiorimaking processes does not
1 5 replacef abridge or satisfy the requirements for coordinated consultation and
16 coordination between county government and the decision making agency(s).
17
1 8 This information for a coordinated planmng effort shall include effects on the
19 physical1 social and economic envirorii~ent. This includes the physical
20 environment, histonc customs, culture, useage, property rights, econornic
21 welfare, general prosperity and economic stability of communities in Siskiyou
22 County. Actions or plans with non-significant impacts or negative impacts on
23 the physical environment shall also be included since those actions or plans
24 may have significant social and/or economic irnplications, including curnulative
25 impacts.
26
27 Since the majonty of land in Siskiyou County is non-private land, and the
28 County's major industries livestock, fann~g, timber, mining and recreation -
29 are tied to that land and peruflent resources either directly or indirectly, then
30 all economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are
3 l interrelated. When federal and state agency actions will potentially impact the
32 physical environment, sodal, cultural, economic factors and/or property nghts,
33 then the following information should be provided:
34
35 The purpose and need for the actions should indicate the underlying puipose
36 and need that brought about the proposed plan, program or projects The
37 perceived purpose or need for an action or plan should be addressed in a
38 maimer to penn't consideration of alternatives accomplishiflg or satisfying the
39 needs and purpose Alternatives for accomplishing the purpose or need should
40 also be includes Each of the alternatives should be describes Descriptions
41 should indicate limitations or factors (mduding costs) that may prohibit
42 alternatives, as well as benefits accruing from each alteniativ~
43
44 The affected or created physical, social and economic environment shall be
45 describes Since these efforts are to pennit coordinated planning with county
46 govemmept such descriptions shall be germane to county units. The maximum
47 level of aggregation is as a county Due to cultural and clirnatic differences and
48 geographic isolation, discussions should include descriptions of affected or
49 created impacts on sub county uflits induding the principal valleys of Butte
so Shasta and Scott as well delineated historically and generally by water drainage
PAGE 7 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 7
l The Tulelake area would be considered distinct from Butte Valley for histoncal
2 developmental, cultural and pbysical reasons. The Kiamath River corridor,
3 particularly in the western stretches of the county, and the mountainous
4 Salmon River area in western Sislciyou County are also considered separate
S areas for social and economic discussions.
6
7 Economically the I-S corridor is a functional unit. However, operationally and-
8 for these planning processes, it consists of north (Yreka and vicinity) and south
9 (Weed, Mt. Shasta, Dunsniuir and McCloud complex) county working areas.
10
I I Objectives of the planned projects or actions shall be evaluated for impacts on
12 the human environment. These objectives and their defjnitions, defined for
13 specific sites (areas)1 must include the commodity and amenity outputs or
14 production thresholds needed to ensure continuity and diversity of the heritage
15 of customs, culture and usages of the citizens of Siskiyou County; the integnty
16 of private property rights and investment backed expectations; and to acliieve
!~ the values that have been determined to be jinportant or necessary to the well
18 being, general community prosperity and economic welfare of the citizens of
19 Siskiyou County. These objectives and production or output levels will then
20 become the goals and evaluation cnteria against which all related proposals and
2 1 alternatives shall be evaluated.
22
23 Desired future conditions, such as vegetative mosaic1 landscape, watershed or
24 watercourse conditions, detemiiiie production or output levels to meet
25 objectives, within the physical capabilities of the natural resources. Since
26 different landscape, watershed and watercourse descriptions will produce
27 different levels of output, Siskiyou County must be involved in designing
28 landscape, watershed and watercourse descripuons to best preserve the quality
29 of the physical environment, continuity of the heritage of customs, culture, and
30 usages integny of private property rights, economic stability of communities
3 1 and economic welfare of County citizens when choices have to be made
32 between conflicting management objectives.
33
34 Discussions of effects on the County's natural resources and environmental
35 quality should indude but are not limited to:
36
37 1. fisheries and wildlife resources
38 2. forest and tirnber resources
39 3. range resources
40 4. drylandcrops
41 5. watershed resources
42 6. pnvate surface and ground water rights and ~gated
43 cropland
44 . 7. rniiieral resources
45 `p8. recreational opportunities
46 9. environmental quality of air, water, and soils
47 10. integrated resource plai~rnng and management ill which
48 county private parties arid/or public interests are involved
49 11. multiple use, sustained yield and range resource laws
so 12. private investments, property interests and regulations into
S 1 public land resources
PAGE 8 Show Image
SISkly~~ CO~~ty Comprehensive Land & esource Management Plan
February 1996
I 13. ~ on privately owner lanci~ irnproverne~ts and
2 resources or adjacent to federal or state managed land
where t~e plan1 program or prQect is proposed
4
S Discussions of effects on the County's culture, governance, sc~ools1 social
6 services and other local programs include bu~ are not limited to:
7
8 1. The culture of the county due to potential population loss.
9
2. The culture of the county from possible limitations and
10 restrictions on cultural beliefs and practices, diversity and
ii choice of lifestyle, and maintenance of cultural, community,
12 generational and familial cohesion and kinship.
13 3. Cultural and community aesthetics, including historic sites,
14 natural resource vistas, r
15
iver ~vays and landscapes.
4. The County's ability to protect and provide Services for the
16 health, safety, and social and cultural well-being of its
17 citizens
18 S. The County's ability to finance public programs and
19 services through bonding, lending and other financing
20 mechanisms
21
6. Local governments (towns, etc.) and schools from identified
22 tax revenue loss
23 7. Local emergency medical se~~ces, law enforcement, fire
24 (and wildfire) protection and nuisance abatement
25 8. The local infrastructure, including transportation,
26
community water, sewer, power, electric power generation
27 and transmission systems, (including irrigation and
28 reclamation districts), Service districts, and landfill services.
29 9. Local community well-being, stability of governance, and
30 the education and welfare of children from cumulative and
31
long-term impacts
32 10. Pest and predation control, and weed abatement.
33
34 Discussions of effects on the County's economy, customs, useages, services and
35 businesses to include but are not ijinited to:
36
37
1. Economic diversity
38 2. Private investment backed expectations
39 3. Direct, indirect and cumulative employment (including
40 those who are self-employed) and wages
41 4. The industries of cattle, fairrng, timber, rn~g and
42 recreation - specifying unit cost effects (e.g. economic value
43
of animal unit months (AUMs)1 million board feet (MMBF),
44 measurements of cubic feet per second (cfs) or acre feet of
45 water, yield per acre, acres in production), recreational user
46 days or other units of measurement as appropriate
47 5. Local businesses directly and indirectly related to the
48
resource decision or pl~
49 6. Housing, real estate values, residential energy, water, sewer
so and sanitation needs.
S' 7. Variable thresholds for business demand and markets.
52 8. Marketability of workforce skills
PAGE 9 Show Image
Siskiyou Gounty Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 9
I 9. `3'1siness and financial ~Iannin~ and t~e ability to obtain
2
financing dependent upon continued availability and
productive use of a natural resource.
4 10. The level of manufacturing or processing teclinology
S required of local industry, dependent upon the availability
6 of suitable raw materials.
7
I 1. Local community well-being, stability and ability to
8 maintain current and future debt service by long-term and
9 cumulative impacts.
10
I 1 Direct and indirect impacts on economics, and ramihcations of planned
12 activities on local economics shall use appropriate multipliers.
13 Discussions shall include any effects on property rights and protectable
14 interests in the County. In addition to these requirements, there shall be an
is evaluation of the irnpacts on property rights, as subject under California
16 ~\`ecutive Order D-78-89 on Regulatory Takings, the United States Presidential
17 Executive Order No. 12630, entitled "Government Actions and Interference with
18 Constitutionally Protected Property Rights", and the Attorney General's
19 guidelines entitle "Evaluation of Risks and Avoidance of Unanticipated
20 Takings", mandating that the following tests or criterion be used in assessing
21 possible taking of private property rights:
22
23 1. Whe~er the plan, program or prrnect constitutes an actual
24
physical intrusion or actual tahng
25 2. Whether the plan, program or prrnec~ constitutes a
26 regulatory taking
27 3. Potential for partial or full loss of economic value or
28 investment backed expectation
29
4. Related effects on custom, culture and usage
.30 S. Whether the agency action conforms to constitutionally
3 1 protected property rights and commonly accepted notions
32 of fairness and due process
33 6. Cost of compliance.
34
35 Discussions shall include cumulative, long-term effects on the County's
36 economy, culture, usage, services and businesses. Plans, programs or actions
37 may have insig~icant impacts when analyzed individually, however,
38 cumulative long-term impacts when combined with plans that have sinnlar
39 direct or indirect impacts may be significant. Infrastructure of economic
40 sectors1 culture, customs, usage, services and coinnunity stability must be
4 1 evaluated and protected from cumulative effects.
42
43 Alternatives shall be described in a manner permitting comparative evaluation
44 am~ong the options by decision makers and the public. This shall indude all
45 reasonable alternatives and why alternatives were eliminated, including
46 reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency and the
47 alternative of no action. Identification shall be made of the preferred
48 alternatives.
49 -
so It is the policy of Siskiyou County that federal and state agencies shall not
S I approve plans, programs or projects as proposed if there are feasible
` . . . . - .
PAGE 10 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 10
I reduce or ekn~nate significant impacts to both the physical social and
2 economic environment. Mitigation plans for all alternatives ~4U provide
3 detailed and realistic alternatives in accordance ~tk NEPA. These plans shall
4 identify each impact that the rnitigation rneasure is intended to address. This
5 should include the responsible agency for implementation and monitoring of
6 the mitigation measure. These rnitigation measures shall also be evaluated by:
7
8 1. How impacts may be avoided altogether by not taking certain actions.
9 2. How impacts may be minimized by 1imi~g the degree or magnitude
10 of the proposed actions.
I I 3. How impacts may be rectified through repair, rehabilitation or
12 restoration of the affected environment.
13 4. How impacts may be reduced or eliniiiiated over time through
14 preservation and maintenance actions during the life of the action.
15 S. How the agency could compensate for the impact by providing
16 substitute resources of equal utility or econornic value.
17
I 8 Each mitigation measure should also discuss its legal authority1 technical
19 feasibility, fiscal and economic feasibility1 social, cultural and political
20 feasibility. To help ensure implementation of the mitigation plan a monitonng
21 plan based on specific objectives and performance standards shall be
22 implemented. Monitoring and the mitigation plan shall be regularly provided
23 and discussed with the Sishyou County Board of Supervisors or designee.
24
25
PAGE 11 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I Appendix I ~ Jurisdiction and Coordination
2
3 us Supreine Court Decision: Jurisdiction of State & Local Courts
4
S On May 20, 1991, the United States Supreme Court declared that the federal
6 agencies are required to submit to the jurisdiction of state and local courts.2 In
7 a unanimous decision, the court declared that federal agencies sue&under State
8 law in a State court cannot seek to have the case removed to federal court The
9 question before the Supreme Court was whether the National Institute of
10 Health, an agency of the federal government, could force a case under State la~~
I I to be heard in federal district court The Supreme Court ruled that cases
12 involving federal agencies could not be automatically removed to federal court.
13 The Court concluded that although persons or officers of the federal
14 government specifically named in a State action in State court can cause a case
Is to be heard in federal court, federal agencies named as sole defendants cannot
16 cause a case to be removed to federal courL Individuals or county governinents
I 7 seeking to protect their rights under State or local law, in State or local courts,
18 against the federal government should name only the federal agencv creating
19 the statutory violation rather than naming individual employees.
20
21 The key elements for achieving consistency and coordination trace back to the
22 doctnne of concurrent jurisdiction::
23
24 federal jurisdiction to manage the resources on public lands1 and
25 local/State jurisdiction to protect the health, safety, economic welfare
26 and rights of its citizens.
27
28 The statutes related to federal-local consistency and coordination in land use
29 planning are highlighted below. For a more in-depth presentation of all the
30 federal and State statutes related to coordination with County governments, see
3 1 Appendix I, The Legal and Administrative Environment.
32
33 Siskiyou County economy is primarily dependent upon federally-managed lands
34 and resources. The National Environmental Policy Act (and other relevant laws
35 discussed later) contain provisions for Siskiyou County to plan in regards to
36 public, as well as private land to protect its natural environment and to protect
37 the customs and culture, social and econoim~c well-being of Sislayou County
38 citizens. Siskiyou County's priniary plannmg mechanism for planning on public
39 lands is to coordinate with federal land ageiicles to reach consistency between
40 federal land agency plans and Siskiyou County land resource plans.
41
42 Federal statutes and regulations require federal agencies to consider and
43 protect from adverse impacts, the econornic structure of counties. Furthermore,
44 federal agencies must consider and protect more than just economic structures.
45 For example,.the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal
46 agencies to assure safe, healthful, productive, aesthetically and culturally
47 . pleasing surroundings, to preserve cultural aspects and maintain an
48 environment supporting a variety of ~dividual choices. More significantly1
~ -
PAGE 12 Show Image
SISkIy~~ COUnty Comprehensive Land & esource Management Plan
February 1996
I federal agQncies rnust specify mitigation p[ans to reduce or e[iniinate adverse
2 impacts to local cornrnunities.3
4 The US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regulations require the
S agency to consider effects of its actions on communities adjacent to1 or near,
6 public lands, and on employment in affected areas The spirit and the letter of
7 the statutes and regulations require agencies to protect a community's ~vay of
8 life-the delicate fabric holding families together-as well as a cormnurnty's
9 economic base, before taking actions that might prove harmful This
10 comprehensive plan refers to the federal agency's obligation in terms of
I I protecting and preserving the corninunity's econornic base as either `economic
12 stability or cornrnunity stability."
13
14 SISKIYOU COUNTY& THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYACT:
Is
16 The NEPA is the basic national charter requiring consideration of the
17 environment. It establishes policies, sets goals, and provides the means for
18 carrying out policies and attaining goals. NEPA is extremely important to coun~-
19 governments. ~~hlle it is a federal la~v, each State is expected to assist in
20 implementation of NEPA. Under the concept of "federalism", states and local
21 governments can develop their own enviromnental plans under NBPA.
22
23 NEPA: Congressional Declaration of Policy
24
25 Public land and resource agencies are required to carry out the mandates of
26 NEPA within Siskiyou County. This requires that these federal agencies consulz,
27 coordinate and jointly conduct environmental studies, plans, reviews and
28 hearings with Siskiyou County's Environmental Plan.
29
30 As the umbrella environmental law, NEPA declares:
31
32 "...that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in
33 cooperation with State and local governments, g14 use all
34 practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of
`35 national policy, to irnprove and coordinate Federal plans, functions,
36 prograi~~, and resources to the end that the Nation may- ~ ...assure
37 for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and
38 culturally pleasing surroundings;"6 and "...preserve ~portant Iiistori~
39 cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain,
40 wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety
41 of individual choice."7 [Emphasis added]
42
~4O ~FR ~ 1$02.14(F),1s02.16(H),1508.20
442U5c4331(a)
~42 usc 4331w)
6
42 usc 433,1 (1,)(2)
7
42 usc 4331~)(4)
PAGE 13 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 13
l NEPA: Protection of Culture & Custom
3 NEPA not OfllY requires that the federal government consider the impacts of its
4 actions on the environment1 but it also requires federal agencies to preserve
5 culture and heritage. NEPA states that cooperation and coordination will occur
6 with t1locaI governments," and that the culturally pleasing surroundings and
7 cultural aspects of community will be preserved so as to support diversity and
8 variety of indi\Tidual cVYoice.
9
10 Each county under NEPA must deterrnine and define its local custom and
I I culture and then act to protect them. Siskiyou County has defined its custom
12 and culture. Once a county government has identified and defined its custom
13 and culture1 it must inform the federal agencies of the definition and request
14 that custom and culture be preserved under NEPA. State agencies should also be
15 informed and requested to comply, accordingly.
16
17 Mandate to Federal Agencies Under NEPA
18
19 NEPA mandates specific performance requirements which are crucial to the
20 Siskiyou County Comprehensive Plan:
21
4
22 all agencies of the Federal Government shall...(C) include in every
23 reconimendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major
24 Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
2S environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on...
26
27 (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action
28
29 (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cani~ot be avoided
30 should the proposal be implemented;
31
32 (lii) alternatives to the proposed action;
33
34 (iv) the relationship between short-term uses of rnan's
35 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-
36 term productivity; and
37
38 (v) any iireversible and irretnevable corrirnitments of resources
39
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
40 implemented.
41
42 A significant element of (i) above is the cumulative effects or impacts:
43
44 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
45 significant actions taking place over a time period8 ... Effects include
46 ...historic cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct1 indirect or
47 cumulative.9
84OCFR§ 1S086.
PAGE 14 Show Image
Siskiyou County Compretiensive Land & kesource Management Plan
February 1996 page 14
2 in addition, means of Initigation1 (reducing the negative impacts) shaU be
3 detailed and provide realistic alternatives'0 In order to develop realistic
4 mitigation plans and alternatives, it is necessary to coordinate with local
5 government officials to adequately identify1 at a minirnum, the fiscal
6 relationships between federal agencies and local governments. ldentifving
7 miti~ation alternatives in a coordinated way between Siskiyou County
8 Supervisors and federal agencies is the kev element to achieving consistency
9 between the Siskiyou County Plan and federal agency Dlans
I0
I 1 FURTHERMoRE, NEPA REQUIRES:
12
13 Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible federal official snaIl
14 consult with and obtain tne cornrnents of any Federal agency wLiich has
15 jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental
16 impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and view of the
17 appropriate Federal, State1 and local agencies1 which are authorized to develop
18 and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President
19 the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section
20 6S2 of title S~ and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency
21 rC\FICW processes;
22
23 (G) Make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and
24 individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and
25 enhancing the quality of the environment'
26
27 Sisidyou County should be alerted to any federal proposals, plans, legislation, or
28 other federal actions that fall under the prevue of this plan and request, when
29 necessary, that an environmental inipact statement be prepared, if one is not
30 otherwise prepared, by the involved federal agency.
31
32 The President, the federal agencies1 and the courts share responsibility for
33 ehforcing the Act so as to achieve the substantive (pertaining to NEPA
34 substance] requirements..12 A major oi~ective of the NEPA regulations is:
35
36 (13) Emphasizing cooperative consultation among agencies before the
37 environmental linpact statement is prepared rather than submission of
38 adversary comments on a completed document.'3
39
40 NEPA requires agendes to circulate both the draft and final environmental
41 impact statements, except for certain appendices and unaltered statements, to
42 appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce
43 environmental standards.
44
`0ibid at 19
II 42 USC 4332(2)(C)(i)-(v) and (2)(G).
1240 ~FR 1.SOO (a)
1340 CFR 15O~.1 (b)
`~4O cFR 1SO2.19(a)
PAGE 15 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 15
I Joint Environmental Planning:
2
3 NEPA provides the following guidelines for federal coordination with county
4 governrnents to integrate federal environmental plans with local planning
5 processes:
6
7 (b) Agencies stall cooperate witLi State and local agencies to the fullest
8 extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and State and local
9 requirements, unless the agencies are specifically barred from doing so
10 by some other law. Except for cases covered by paragraph (a) of this
I l section1 such cooperation shall1 to the fullest extent possible, include:
12
13 (1) Joint planning processes;
14 (2) Joint environmental research and studies;
`5 (3) Joint public hearings (except where otherwise provided by
16 statute); and
17 (4) Joint environmental assessments.
Is
19 (c) Agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to tLie fullest
20 extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable
2 1 State and local requirements1 unless t~e agencies are specifically barred
22 from doing so by some other law...such cooperation shall to the fullest
23 extent possible include joint environmental impact statements. In such
24 cases, one or more Federal agencies and one or more State or local
25 agencies shall be joint lead agencies. Where State laws or local
26 ordinances have environmental impact statement requirements m
27 addition to...those in NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooperate in
28 f[llfimng these requirements as well as those of Federal laws so that
29 one document will comply with all applicable laws.
30
3 1 (d) To better integrate environmental impact statements into State or
32 local planning processes, statements shall discuss any inconsistency of a
33 proposed action with any approved State or local plan arid laws, (whether
34 or not federally sanctioned). Where an inconsistency exists, the
35 statement should describe the extent to which the agency would
36 reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law. `~
37
38 The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are
39 based on environmental consequences, arid that take actions to protect1 restore,
40 and enhance the environment arid preserve local custom and cu1tur~ NEPA and
41 the implementing CEQregulatiozis require all federal agencies to coordinate
42 with county governments as outlined above County govenii~eiits can. always
43 resort to use of the NEPA process regardless of the federal agency, law,
44 program, or,action involves Significantly, peruflent federal agencies (e.g., US
45 Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
46 and US Pare Service) are mandated in a wide range of laws to comply with
47 . NEPAL Accordingly, the Council on Environmental QualiW has promulgated
48 regulations to guide federal agencies through the NEPA process.
49
PAGE 16 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resoufce Management Plan
February 1996 page 16
I Four major fed~raI statutes-tee NEPA, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
2 (ICA)1 the National Forest Management Act (NF~t~)1 and the Federal Land Pohcy
and Management Act (FLP~)-mandate intergo~'erninental coordination and
4 cooperation~ especially where local and State governments can be or are
S affected by federal agency decisions. Furthermore~ these federal statutes
6 mandate resource allocation decisions and land uses on public lands must be
7 made through a comprehensive public planning process. The complex mt\ture
8 of data collection, analysis of impacts, re\qew of alternatives and
9 implementation of strategies includes ~~tensive public revie~\ and in\~olvement
0 by county government.
II
12 The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act:
13
14 In addition to NEPA1 the ICA requires federal agencies to coordinate and re~ew
is. with State and local governments1 federal government programs and project
16 plans. ICA:
17
is ...provides opportunities for strengthening the consultation and
19 coordination between federal1 local and State governments through
20 coordination and review of proposed federal assistance and direct
21 federal development programs.'6
22
23 Furthermore, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 12372. It
24 requires federal agencies to coordinate with State and local governments. I~
25 requires federal agencies to comply with State processes for intergovernmental
26 review and coordination of federal programs and actions.
27
28 Executive Order 12372 states:
29
30 Section 1. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation
3 1 by elected officials of those State and local governments that would
32 provide the non-federal funds for or that would be directly affected
33 by proposed federal financial assistance or direct federal
34 development.
35
36 Section 2.
37
38 (a) ...federal agencies shall to the extent perinitted by law:...detennine
39 offidal views of State and local elected officials.
40
41 (13) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the
42 program plug cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific
43 plans and actions.
44
45 (c) Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials'
46 -.* concerns with proposed federal financial assistance and direct
47 federal development...wliere the concerns cannot be accorninodated,
16
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act1 § 401 and 3 USC § 301
PAGE 17 Show Image
Slskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 17
I federal officials stall explain the basis for their decisions in a tirnel~
2 mariner.
3
4 Section 3. (a) The State process referred to in Section 2 shall include
5 those where States designate1 in specific instances to local elected
6 officials the review, coordination, and conrrnumcation ~~th federal
7 agencies.
8
9 It should be noted that under ICA and t~e L\'ecutive Order 12372, the revie~\
10 body has the unique authority to appeal federal decisions directly to the US
I 1 Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior departments. At present1 only these
12 government entities can appeal federal land decisions and plans directly to
13 these cabinet heads. Furthermore, under the new federal appeals process, the
14 general public and special interest groups will not be afforded liberal appeals as
15 in the past; only the Executive Order 1237? ICA organizations TAll have the
16 unique appeal access to these cabinet heads.
17
18 US Forest Service Land & Resource Planning/NEPA Processes:
19
20 Laws require the US Forest Service (USFS) to cooperate and coordinate with
21 Siskiyou County government in its planmng processes. The discussion belo~~
22 highlights the major policies of the Forest Service.
23
24 The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the Secretary of
25 Agnculture "to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the
26 national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products
27 and services obtained therefrom."'7 The Act authorizes the Secreta~~ of
28 Agriculture "to cooperate with interested State and local governmental agencies
29 and others in the development and management of the national forests."'8 The
30 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planrirng Act of 1974 (RPA)
31 strengthens the opportunity for county input. In Section 3, the RPA recognizes
32 the iniportance of renewable forest and range resources, and directs the
33 Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment. The RPA
34 elevates the relationship between the USFS and county governtnents from one
35 of cooperation to one of coordination with the following requirement:
36
37 6(a) As a part of the Program provided fo r by section 3 of this Act1 the
38 Secretary of Agiiculture shall develop1 maintain, and1 as appropriate,
39 revise land and resource management plans for units of the National
40 Forest System, coordiflated with the land and resource management
41 plan~g processes of State and local governments and other
42 Federal agencies. 19 [~~phasis added]
43
44 The RPA was extensively amended by the National Forest Management Act of
45 1976. Significantly1 Section 6(a) of the RPA, quoted above, was not amended
46 . The National Forest Management Act requires that each plan developed "be
47 revised (A) from tirne to time when the Secretary finds conditions in a unit have
17 16 USC 529
181~TT~C~~fl
PAGE 18 Show Image
SI~kIyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 18
1 sigrufican~~ chauged, but at least every fifteen years. `0 It u~ust coordinate land
2 use planning efforts with those of county governments under this Act and
~ through the NEPA process:
4
S The resulting plans shall provide for multiple use and sustained yield of
6 goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that
7 maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound
8 manner.
9
10 (b) Plans guide all natural resource management acti~ties and establish
11 management standards and guidelines for the National Forest System.
12 They determine resource management practices, levels of resource
13 production and management, and tbe availability and suitability of
14 lands for resource management. Regional and forest planning will be
is based on the follo~ving principles:
16
17 (S) Preservation of important historic, cultural, and natural
18 aspects of our national heritage;
19
20 (9) Coordination witi' the land and resource planning efforts of
21 other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
22 Indian tribes;
23
24 (13) Management of National Forest System lands in a manner that
25 is sensitive to econoniic efficiency; and
26
27 (14) Responsiveness to changing conditions of land and other
28 resources and to changing social and economic demands of
29 tIle American people.21 [Emphasis added]
30
3 1 Specific requirements for accomplishing the purposes of planning coordination
32 ~vith county governments are provided as follows:
33
34 (a) the responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest
35 planning with the equivalent and related plannmg efforts of other
36 Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.
37 [Emphasis added]
38
39 (c) The responsible line officer shall review the plan~~g and land use
40 policies of other Federal agendes, State and local governments, and
4' Indian tribes. The results of this review shall be displayed in the
42 erivironmental irnpact statement for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c),
43 1506.2).
44
45 us Bureau of Land Management Land & Resource Planning/NEPA
46 Processes:
47
20 16 USC 1604(f)(S)
21 36 CFR 2 19. 1(a),~)(S),(9),(13),(14)
PAGE 19 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 19
l The guiding statute for t~e Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to administer
2 public lands is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. ThQ
3 statute defines the term public lands" as any land and interest in land o~rned
4 by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secreta~
S of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how
6 the United States acquired ownership, except: (1) lands located on the Outer
7 Continental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and
8 Eskimos. FLPMA specifically requires the BLM to prepare land use plans:
9
10 (a) The Secretary shall1 with public involvement and consistent with the terms
1 l and conditions of this Act1 develop1 maintain, andg when appropriate, review
12 land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands
13 Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether
14 such lands previously have been classified~ withdrawn, set aside1 or othenvise
15 designated for one or more uses. 2'
16
17 It is significant to note that FLPMA provides explicit directives for the BLM to
is coordinate public land use planning with county governments, and to ensure
19 that federal land use plans are consistent with local plans to the maximum
20 extent possible. The statute details the BLM's mandate as follows:
21
22 (c) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary
23 shall-
24
25 (9) ...to the extent consistent with the laws governing the
26 administration of the public lands1 coordinate the land use
27 inventory, planning1 and management activities of or for
28 such lands with the land use planning and management
29 programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of
30 the State and local goverrirnents within which the lands are
3 1 located1 including1 but not luni~ted to, the statewide outdoor
32 recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3,
33 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended, and of or for Indian tribes
34 by, among other things, considering the policies of approved
35 State and tribal land resource management programs. In
36 implementing this directive, the Secretary shall1 to the extent
37 he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal
38 land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those
39 State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the
40 developinent of land use plans for public lands; assist in.
41 resolving, to the ~~ent practical, inconsistencies between
42 Federal arid nori~Federal Govemment plans, and shali
43 provide for meanmgful public involvement of State and
44 . locai government officials, both elected and appointed, in
45 . . the development of land use programs, land use. regulations,
46
and land use decisions for public lands, including early
47
public notice of proposed decisions which may have a
48 * significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in
49 each State are authorized to funnish advice to the Secretary
so with respect to the development and revision of land use
PAGE 20 Show Image
Siskiyou County Compekensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 20
plans, laud use guidelinQs1 land use rules, and land use
2 regulations for the public lands `vithin such State and ~vitli
respect to such otter land use matters as may be referred to
4 tbem by iijm. ~nd use plans of the Secretary under this
S section shaU be consistent witli State and local plans to the
6 maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal la~v and the
7 purposes of this Act
S
9 (f) The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and by
10 regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where
I I appropriate1 to give Federal¶ State1 and local governments and the public1
12 adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the
13 formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public
14 lands.23 [Emphasis added]
Is
16 Both the Forest Service and the BLM regulations require coordination and
17 consistency with State and local governments. The requirements pertain to both
18 long-range plans (e.g.1 forest plans) as well as coordination and consistency \\rith
19 county governments in plan implementation; that is1 project planning and
20 development.
21
22 SISKIYOU COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & REVIEW:
23
24 Purpose ofthe Environniental Review Plan
25
26 Under NEPA guidelines1 Siskiyou County shall establish and implement
27 environmental review to protect the resources for future generations as well as
28 protect the economic and community~ customs1 customs usages and cultures,
29 stability for present and future generations. The plamung process is designed
30 for early detection and mitigation of possible negative impacts of proposed
3 1 State or federal decisions on resources in Siskiyou County, and on the custom,
32 culture arid the economy of the citizens of Siskiyou County. To carry out this
33 plan, coordination between federal and State agencies and Siskiyou County is
34 important.
35
36 Intergovernmental Coordination
37
38 Federal statutes and Presidential executive orders provide the framework for
39 coordinated planmn~g between Siskiyou Countyg State and federal agendes.
40 Federal statutes and regulations require these agendes to coordinate ~vith local
4 l governments in the jnitial plainrug stages.24 They also require that federal
42 agencies work in close consultation when there are changes in their federal
43 *~resource plans. To date, such coordinauon has not happened in a coordinated
44 or consiste way.
45
2343 ~ 1712(c)(9),(f)
24
16 usc § 1604 ~6O4 a, and 43 cr~ § 1601.O-S,c,e
PAGE 21 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 21
l In addition, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (42 USC §423 1) specifies
2 coordinated plaruiing requirements between local1 State and federal agencies.
3 Under ICA1 t~e Presidential Executive Order 12372 further mandates teat
4 federal agencies coordinate federal actions and projects with local
5 governments, especially when federal projects impact local governments.
6
7 Plan Elenients For EnviroRmental Review
8
9 The Major elements of Siskiyou County Environmental review shall be:
l0
I l A. Coordinated Environmental Planning and Review
12 B. Environmental Assessment (Social and Economic)
13 C. Impacts on Private Property Rights
14 D. Cumulative Effects
I S E. Mitigation Plans
16
17 Siskiyou Count economy is dependent upon federal and State-managed lands
I 8 to a large extent. It is, therefore, necessary that county, State and federal
19 agencies and regulatory entities work closely to determine the effects of
20 resource plans and decisions. By pooling local, State and federal resources, the
2 1 general public will be better informed about resource decisions and the process
22 will provide an unique opportunity to cooperatively develop realistic mitigation
23 alternatives to reducing negative environmental, social and economic trflpacts.
24
25 NEPA provides the legal framework for intergovernmental coordination:25
26
27 1. Joint environmental planning approach
28 2. Jdint environmental research
29 3. Joint public hearings
30 4. Joint preparation of environmental documents
3 1 5. Cumulative effects
32 6. Joint mitigation planning to include:
33 realistic alternatives
34 . detailed alternatives
35
36 Sisk~you County Supervisors shall promulgate environmental review to protect
37 natural resources, stabffize the economy, and protect the custom, culture
38 usages and social resources arid property rights of the people of Sishyou
39 County.
40 California Environmental Quality Act
41 Ml applicable portions shall be applied.
42 California Adininistrative Act
43 The California AdmInistrative Procedures Act mandates any state agency that
44 proposes to impose a new rule, order or regulation, or proposes to change any
45 existing Ili1e1 order or regulation, upon Siskiyou County or its atizens, to first
46 consider all reasonable alternatives and create a formal "...statement that no
PAGE 22 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & esourne Management Plan
Feb~ua~ 1996 page 22
I alternative considered by t~e agency would be more effective in carrying out
2 the purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective or
3 less burdensome to affected private persons than t~e proposed reguIation~'
4 This Act clearly shows tfie California Legislaturets intent that its agencies
S carefully consider the customs1 culture and econornics of California citizens
6 during the process of consideration and adoption of new or changed rules,
7 orders and/or regulations in Siskiyou County.
S
9 California Administrative Procedures Act
10 1)cflnitions
I l Section 1 1342. In this chapter unless othe~vise specifically indicated:
12 (b) "Regulation11 means every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general
13 application or the amendment, supplement or re~sion of any such rule,
14 regulation, order or standard adopted by any state agency to implement,
is interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern
16 its procedure, except one which relates only to the internal management of the
17 state agency....
18
19 Statement ofReasoris forAdoption orAmendmen(; Specific technology or
20 Equiptiieut; Alternatives
21
22 Section 11346.14. The initial statement required by Section 11346.7 shall also
23 include, but not be limited to, the following:
24 (a) Where the adoption or amendment of a regulation would mandate the
25 use of specific technologies or equipment, a statement of the reason why the
26 agency believes such mandates or prescriptive standards are required.
27 (b) A description of the alternatives to the regulation considered by the
28 agency and the agency's reasons for rejecting those alternatives, and a
29 statement that no alternative considered by the agency would be more effective
30 in carrymg out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as
3 1 effective or less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed
32 regulation. In the case of a regulation which would mandate the use of specific
33 technologies or equipment or prescribe specific actions or procedures, the
34 imposition of performance standards shall be considered as an alternative.
35 Any statutory reference to Section 11346.7 shall be construed to also be a
36 reference to this section.
37
38 Notice ofProposed Action; Mailing; Delivery; Publication, Effecttve Penod; Notice
39 ofAdoption, Amendment or Repeal after Completion and Approval; California
40 Requlatoty Register
4'
42 Section 11346.4. (a) At least 45 days prior to the hearing and dose of the
43 public comment period on the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation,
44 notice of the proposed action shall be:
4S (1) Mailed to every person who has filed a request for notice of regulatory
46 actions with the state agency.
47
48 Express Te:jis ofproposed Action, List ofsmall Business Enterprises and Initial
49 Statement ofReasons; Availability to Public; Final Statement ofReasons and
50 Updated Informative Digest; Adoption or Amendment ofFederal Regulations
51
PAGE 23 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 23
1 Section 1 1346.7. Every agency subject to this chapter shall;
2 (a) Prepare1 submit to the office ~~rith the notice of the proposed actionq and
3 make available to the public upon request, a cope' of the express terms of the
4 proposed action as described in subdivision (b) of Section 1 1346.S1 a list of the
5 small business enterprises or their representatives to whom the notice of
6 adoption1 amendment1 or repeal of a regulation will be mailed and an initial
7 statement of reasons for proposing the adoption1 amendment1 or repeal of a
8 regulation. The statement shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
9 folIo~ving:
10 (~) A description of the public problem, administrative requirement1 or
l I other condition or circumstance that each adoption, amendment1 or repeal is
12 intended to address.
13 (2) A statement of the specific purpose of each adoption1 amendment1 or
14 repeal and the rationale for the deterimnation by the agency that each
15 adoption, ainendment, or repeal is reasonably necessary to carry out the
16 purpose for which it is proposed.
17 (3) An identification of each technical1 theoretical1 and empincal study,
18 report, or similar document, if any, on which the agency is relymg in proposing
19 the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation.
20 (4) A description of any alternatives the agency' has identified that would
21 lessen any adverse impact on small businesses. It is not the intent of this
22 subdivision to require the agency to artificially construct alternatives or to
23 justify why it has not identified alternatives.
24
25 (b) Prepare and submit to the office ~vith the adopted regulation a final
26 statement of reasons whicli shall include all of the following:
27 (3) A summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the
28 specific adoption, amendment, or repeal proposed, together with an
29 explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accornmodate
30 each objection or recommendation, or the reasons for making no change. This
3 1 requirement applies only to objections or recommendations specifically
32 directed at the agency's proposed action or to the procedures followed by the
33 agency in proposing or adopting the action.
34 (4) A deterinination with supporting information that no alternative
35 considered by the agency would be more effective in carrymg out the purpose
36 for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective and less
37 burdensome to affected private persons than the adopted regulation
38 (5) An explanation setting forth the reasons for rejecting any proposed
39 alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact on small
40 businesses.
41
42
43
44
PAGE 24 Show Image
SI~kIy~u County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plafi
February 1996 page 24
I Appendix 2 Custom ~ Culture
2
) Culture is an outgrowth of the natural environment. PeopI~ respond to specific
4 envirorunental force in a manner that en\'ironmental forces produce a material
5 way of living as a way subjected to it ~ produces ~vays to overcome natural
6 obstacles. Cultures evolve as different ways of meeting the same problem1 such
7 as developing or producing a salable product to be exchanged for raw material
8 or products not avai~ble locally.
9
10 A cu~ure consists not of people but of ways people in a given environment act
I I Culture is the integrated system of learned behavior patterns it is non-
12 instinctive. Standards of rightness and ~~rrongness (value) and of usages and
13 effectiveness (customs) are relative to the given culture.
14
Is Relating to custom and culture1 NEPA requires:
16 It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Goverrrrnent to use all
17 practical means1 consistent with other essential considerations of
18 national policy1 to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions,
19 programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may-
20 (2) assure for all Ainencans safe, healthful, productive and
21 aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings,...
22 (4) preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of
23 our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an
24 environment which supports diversity and variety of individual
25 choice
26 Culture1 as used in NBPA¶ is defined as:
27
28 The body of "customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits
29 constituting a distinct complex of tradition of a racial, religious or social
30 group"-that compl~~ whole that includes knowledge, belief, morals, law,
31 customs1 opinions, religion1 superstition and art.1'
32
33 As stated in the above deftnition, culture includes custom.
34
35 Custom is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:
36 "A usage or practice of the people, which by common adoption and
37 acquiescence, and by long and unvary'ng habit, has become compulsory,
38 and has acquired the force of a law with respect to the place or subject-
39 matter to which it relates...An habitual or customary practice, more or
40 less widespread, which prevails within a geographic or sociological ares
41
42 Custom1 as used in the context of the Comprehensive Plan, refers to land or
43 resource usages and practices that have ,, acquired the force of a tacit and
44 common consent". Such land uses and practices, livestock grazing, logging,
45 farmirig, mining, recreation and hunting, to mention just a few, are concrete,
46 readily identifiable and are the foundation of Siskiyou County's economy.
47
48 Culture is/a people's identity and the foundation upon which political society
49 and an economy are built. The people of Siskiyou County are unique products
50 of the complex web of land and resource uses and practices; values and beliefs
5 1 that nurture their communities, sustain their economies, empower their local
PAGE 25 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 25
I government and give form and shape to their spiritual and physical
2 efl~ronments.
4 The importance of custom and culture resides ultimately in the principle of
5 commurnty stability. Community stability is equated to economic stability the
6 condition under which communities can chanqe, adaptf and develop by the
7 dictates ofcustorn and culture rather than by the conirnands ofoutside groups
8 and govemnients. Community stability entails an en~ronment where people
9 and their customs and cultures are left to their own democratic means; where
10 eve~7 community is the arbiter of its own survival; where people1 subject only
I I to the rule of nature and free markets, are masters of their own destinies.
12
13 Ob\~ously, community stability depends on the right of people and
14 commumties to pursue and protect the custom and culture most essential to
I 5 their ~vell-being and most suited to their personal visions. Public policies that
16 injure or dirninish custom and culture by injecting elements of outside control,
1 7 (whether intended to be beneficial e.g. subsidies, or invasive and destructive
18 e.g. regulations,) are ultimately disruptive of community stability. Such policies
19 take away from local people the degree of independence, political integrity,
20 economic discretion and responsiveness necessary to retain a way of life
21 commensurate ~vith custom and culture. In Siskiyou County, federal and State
22 land or resource laws and regulations have disrupted community stability by
23 denying both ~cal government and local citizens their legal sovereignty in
24 matters of local land or resource use.
25
26 For these reasons, the people of Siskiyou County have concluded that a proper
27 goal of comprehensive land and resource use planning is to ensure community
28 stability. In an environment where private lands are increasingly subject to
29 arbitrary federal and State control, and where federal and State properties
30 comprise an overwhelming majority of the county's land base, that goal can
3 l best be achieved by empowerment; by protecting the integnty of property
32 rights, and independence of every citizen; and by making custom and culture
33 an issue of local rather than national consensus. A planrdflg strategy based on
34 these assumptions is attainable only by allowing the people who use and live
35 upon the land to participate and make the crucial decisions that deternnne
36 their welfare and the welfare of the environment at large. No plan can, or for
37 that matter should isolate or protect community stability and custom and culture
38 from the force ofchange in response to nature and the free markets. This plan
39 should, and does, insulate Siskiyou County from the abuses sterririung from
40 national and State public p6licy and from the actions of those whose ambitions
4 1 are directed at denying individual and local self~etermination. Such abusive
42 practices and policies constitute cultural genocide.
43
44 There is one last aspect of custom, culture and community stability that is
45 essential to the goal of the comprehensive pl~ A peoples' custom and culture
46 and the economic stabffity of their community is not only a political and moral
47 issue of great import, but it is also an obligation placed upon the federal
48 governmen[t and the State through collaborative agreements by law and
49 regulation. The federal government is constrained by specific statutes and
50 associated regulations from adversely impacting custom, culture and
51 community stability in Siskiyou County or in any county in the United States.
PAGE 26 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resoufce Management Plan
Febfuary 1996 page 26
1 In £ac~ t~Q Policy of ttie federal government, from the establisLiment of forest
2 reserves iu Siskiyou County, to t~e passage of tile National Forest Management
3 Act and tfie Federal Land Policy and Management Act1 to t~e passage of the
4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, has repeatedly asserted the rights of
S local coulmunities1 the inviolability of custom and culture, and the key
6 consideration of community stability in the promulgation of land and resource
7 use laws, regulations, and policies.
8
9 Identification and Recognition of Customs and Culture
10
I 1 Defi~tions of culture and customs, as previously described1 can be used to
12 identify and permit recognition of Siskiyou Count customs and culture1 as
13 illustrated by the following examples. By design this is an evolving process.
14
15 It is recornrnended that interested individuals work together to identify
16 customs and culture in a written manner as presented here. It is anticipated
17 that timber1 `nining and recreation groups be formed to identify their specific
l 8 activities and practices. Federally recognized Native Arnencan groups are
19 considered separate entities by the governrnent1 and hence their specific
20 customs and culture are best addressed through their organizations.
21
22 Overview and Defining of Customs and Culture
23
24 Traditionally, Siskiyou County citizens have suvvived, and supported farces
25 and communities, around the primary economic activities of land and natural
26 resource development, including, but not limited to1 ranching, farmirig, timber
27 harvesting, mirieral recovery, tourism and recreation. Naturally1 the use of our
28 water resources play a vital role in these activities, along with other domestic
29 and commercial usages. Access to lands and resources within Siskiyou County
30 through highways, roads1 trails and other types of rights-of-ways are also
3 1 extremely important to these economic activities and others, as well as the
32 traditional way of conducting sodal customs and cultural activities within the
33 county. Therefore1 historical infonnation on each of these very important
34 traditional uses of ranchirig1 farrningf timber, mirieral recovery, tourism and
35 recreation, water and transportation withiii Siskiyou county is provided. The
36 purpose is to show that these and other important usages do exist and have a
37 long and established tradition within SisIayou County, and are vitally linportant
38 m the cultural and economic well-being and security of the dtizens and
39 communities which make up Siskiyou County
40
41 In no way do these simple historical essays convey the complete history of
42 these important usages in Sislayou County, and they barely touch upon the
43 important and weWestablished customs and cultures which have formed
44 around these and other activities. Furthermore, it is important to make it very
45 . dear that this document is not intended to cover every custom, cultural, or
46 economic~c~tivity and/or traditional usage of land and natural resources within
47 Siskiyou County.
48
PAGE 27 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 27
I [t is also vera' important to point out that future usages of these vera,' sam
2 resources1 and others, are just as important, or even more Lrnportant to
) Siskiyou County, than present and past usages as covered here. In order fo o'er
4 citizens to feel secure in our livelihoods, to promote cultural and econorm~c
5 well-being and community stability, we MUST also be assured that continu~d
6 access to, and sustainable development of, these important resources, anc
7 others, ~vill be readily available to Siskiyou County citizens.
S
9 Projected future land and resource uses are not specifically covered in this
10 document; they are recognized as evolving from historical uses and complianz
1 1 with present and future residents. In fact, future access to the land and
12 resources are of primary importance to the security, stabiliW, economic and
13 cultural well-being of our citizens. For ~\`ample, miners must know that, as
14 technologies improve and new mineral reserves are located, that ~ge `vill have
15 access to make reasonable development of these resources. Farmers and
16 ranchers must feel secure that they will~be allowed to farm and ranch. Timber
17 and mill workers must feel secure that they will have reasonable access to
is timber resources which will provide a sustainable yield. Tourism and recreation
19 enterpnses must feel secure that access to the public lands ~~ill not be hindered
20 without good reason. Siskiyou County citizens must feel cornfortable that their
2 l water resources, and free access to the public lands and their traditional u~aue
22 of natural resources within Siskiyou County will not be taken away ~vithout a
23 thorough evaluation pf the consequences, and without fair compensation paid
24 to those who will sustain a loss of their property and/or their traditional rneai'~
25 of creating a livelihood. Failure to consider and accommodate continuinu ~~ter-
26 dependent relationships between Siskiyou County citizens and their land and
27 natural resources would result in underrnining the complete cultural well-being
28 of its citizens.
29
30
PAGE 28 Show Image
SI~kly~u County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 2o
1 Appendix 3 Customs and Culture Mining in Siskiyou County
2
The extraction of minerals from the earth's -crust for man's use has been a practice since
4 the beginning of~itten history. Extraction ofresources has played an important part in
S the development ofthe customs, culture, and usage in Siskiyou County Gold is the
6 mineral which has been mined Siskiyou County with the greatest economic impact on the
7 County. Other minerals and extractive resources have been mined in the County, but no~
S with th~ intensity that gold has been mined. Mining districts were fd~ed and still exist
9 throughout the county.
10
l I Lindsay Applegate in 1 849 mined for a few days at the headwaters of the Scott River.
12 That same year James Abrams discovered gold in Cecilville, on the South Fork of the
I 3 Salmon River. Gold was also discovered on the Klamath River, Shasta River, Yreka
14 Creek, and Greenhorn Creek. The ground was so rich on McAdams and Cherry Creeks in
15 the Deadwood District that it was mined over six times. Min[ing districts and claims were
16 forrned throughout the western halfofthe County.
17
18 Each ofthese mining districts had its own set ofregulations for governing claims `~There
19 were no well-developed American mining codes before the gold rush, but in Europe,
20 South America, and Mexico, a body ofordinances had evolved through centuries of
2 1 experience in regulating mining practices. It was these ordinances brought primarily by
22 English and Latin-American gold seekers that provided the basis for California mining
23 law.4
24
25 The fundamental principles were the same in the districts---that men who discovered a
26 section ofgold-bearing ground had the right to exploit it, and that this right lasted only as
27 long as a man continued to work his claim. Each man could locate or `4claim" only one
28 section ofground, but he could purchase the claims of others.
29
30 The body of laws regulating gold mining has grown since the gold rush. The California
3 1 Practice Act of I 85 1 stated that In actions respecting mining claims, proofshould be
32 admitted ofcustoms, usages, or regulation established and in force at the bar or diggings
33 embracing such claim and such customs, usages, or regulations, when not in conflict with
34 the Constitution and Laws ofthis State, should govern the decisions ofthe action.
35 Miners' claims were upheld by the cQurts as possessory rights, which were good among
36 the miners themselves and against any other claimant but the government.
37
38 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 established that all the mineral lands ofthe public domain
39 should be free and open for exploration and occupation; that rights which had been
40 acquired in these lands under a system of local rules, with the apparent acquiescence and
41 sanction ofthe government, should be recogrnzed and affirmed; and that titles~atents)
42 * on lands containing certain classes of mineral deposits might be ultimately obtained.
43
44 The l 870 U. 8. Mining Law amended July 9 provided that all patents granted, or
45 preemption or homestead nghts allowed, should be subject to any water rights or rights to
46 ditches and reservoirs used in connection therewith, as may have been acquired under or
47 recognized by the Act of I~66.
PAGE 29 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February i996
2 The Gen~ra1 Mining Act ofMay 10, 1872, confirmed the Acts of 1866 and 1870(See
3 attached)
4
S California Civil Code 1410-1422, effective January 1, 1873, was essentially a
6 codification of the principles and practices that had been developed in the mining districts
7 and camps and the first legislative authonzation by the State for the appropriation of
S water. It is evident that the appropriation doctrine was established in California only as a
9 result ofcustoms and usages developed in the mining districts and camps.
10
I I Mining and providing services and supplies to the miners have contributed greatly to the
12 economic stabilit\' oft
he many mining communities which developed in Siskiyou
13 Countyts mining districts. Scott Bar was a relatively large mining town. By October of
14 185 1 the town contained about 50 houses and included stores, boarding houses and
15 saloons. In I 88 1 the town consisted ofa hotel, 2 stores, a butcher shop, a drug store, a
16 blacksmith, saloons and residences. Other communities which developed and grew as a
17 result ofthe minina ac
18 Camp, and \§reka. ~ tivity nearby included Forks ofSalmon, Sa~~'ers Bar, Happy
Within six months ofthe discovery ofgold at Thompson's D~
19 Diggings in Yreka (known then as Shasta Butte City), th~ population had grown from
20 about 1,000 inhabitants to over 5,000 people.
21
22 Mining activity has been continuous in Siskiyou County since the first gold discovenes.
23 There have been fluctuations in mining activity and output. These fluctuations have been
24 caused by depletion ofore bodies, new discoveries, improvements in extraction
25 techniques, regulatory impediments, price changes ofgold and general economic
26 conditions. The general prosperity that began in 1 9 1 6 and continued until I 929, with
27 accompanying high costs, caused a general decrease in gold output. The Gold Reserve
28 Act of 1934 changed the price ofgold from ~2O.67 per ounce to ~3S.OO per ounce. This
29 rise in the price of gold ultimately resulted in a large increase in gold output and in much
30 greater exploration. World War II caused a drop in gold output. War Production Board
3 1 Limitation Order L-208, issued on October 8, 1 942, caused the gold mines to be shut
32 down. When the American dollar was devalued and then set completely afloat in 1973,
33 the pnce ofgold went as high as $800.00 per ounce. Between 1975 and 1980 suction
34 dredge permits issued by the California Department of Fish and Game quadrupled in
35 number.
36
37 Mining is a classic free enterprise activity where any person can go out and prospect to
38 find hidden deposits ofgold or other valuable minerals and develop for one's own benefit
39 arid survival. Many citizens supported their families by small-scale mining for gold
40 du.nng the depression years when no other work was available.'
41
42 While small-scale gold mining is mostly being done as a hobby today, bringing in
43 . thousands of'recreationists and tourists each year (which provides substantial income to
44 rural comrn~unities within the county), some still pursue the activity to provide for their
45 livelihood. If the value of gold anCUor other minerals increases during fliture years, it is
46 more likely that mining will play an even larger economic roll in the county. Also,
PAGE 30 Show Image
Siskiyou County Compehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 30
I methods is ukely to increase the value ofthe county's gold and/or other mineral reserves.
Therefore, Siskiyou County, as a matter ofpolicy, has a strong interest in maintaining the
) availability ofmineral resources fdr Americans to discover and develop.
4
S [
PAGE 31 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resourne Management Plan
February 1996 page 31
I APPENDIX 4 Custom and Culture Agriculture Summary
2
3 Farming, dai~ing and ranching have been established historic economic use of the land in Siskiyou County
4 for almost 150 years. Agriculture is one ofthe highest value added industnes, creatin new wealth from the
5 naturally occurring elements of seed animals, sunshine, minerals and water to produce high quality and
6 quantity food and fiber. Specialization in this industiy has enabled phenomenal levels ofproductivity, freeing
7 the vast majority of Amencans to pursue other enterprise and cultural development as hallmarks of our
~ niodem civilizatioti.
9
10 The concept of ~ resources" includes cultural propevties and traditional lifeway values. Cultural
I I properties associated with ranching, for instance, would be physical structures or characteristics of the
12 landscape, including: livestock, developed springs, wells, ditches and watering tanks, fences, corrals, graa:ing
I 3 allotments, open range, ranch houses, sheep herding camps, shearing pens, loading chutes, grange halls and
14 community centers, one room school houses and livestock.
15
I 6 Traditional "lifeway valuest are often abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed ideas that may or may not be closely
I 7 associated with definite locations and are important to the
groups traditional cultural practice, social
I 8 interaction or economic forms.
19
20 Agricultural operators require broad knowledge and experience in a variety of fields. Acquiring this complex
2 1 knowledge and perfecting necessary skills most offen requires a long apprenticeship, commonly established as
22 a `1lifeway~' passed from one generation to another. For instance, according to kichard Boles in What Color is
23 Your Parachute? ranching is an extemely complex career field. Working with animals alone requires the
24 skills of: serving, sensing, communicating, persuading, performing mana~in~ ne~otiat mg, leading , treatinci
25 and trainina ~ rancher, in addition to ~`1orking ~vith (and riding) animals, must.work pith the physics of
26 handling irrigation water, the mechanics of working with machines, the skills of operating heavy equipment,
27 the agronomy of growing hay crops, the chemistry of pest manaGement, th e veterinary medicine aspects of
28 animal health, the genetics of husbandry, the marketing and sale of a product, the planning and financial
29 management of a small business, the athletics of a physical lifestyle a sense of meteorological prediction, the
30 skills of filling out forms, and a grasp of the biological and geological processes of his surrounding
3 1 environment.
32
33 In Siskiyou County, ~e institution of the small family owned and operated farm, dairy or ranch, not only
34 provides the opportunity for apprenticeship, but reinforces cultural and social values such as being self-reliant,
35 cooperating in teamwork, being reliably responsible for living crops and animals, being valuing the family
36 homestead and its historic traditions, and enjoyment ofoutdoor worl:.
37
38 Raymond Fir, in Human Types. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. The New Amencan Lib~~,
39 c1963, gives and excellent overview of the elements that comprise ucultureu. According to Firth, and other
40 experts, one key to defming culture is the identifiable manifestations or "lifeways" ofa group in responding to
4 1 or living with their environment.
42
43 A combination of climate, topography, soil productivity and the availability ofwater in mountainous Siskiyou
44 County has created several different "micm~nvironments" to which agricultural practices have responded
45 with specialized crops most suited to constraints and risks ofhigh altitudes and a short growing season.
46 Ranching, for instance, was fi~ced with climatic realities that created a need for winter hay or summer gras in
47 timesofdrought
48
49 The historic limitation on homestead parcels to 160 acres also resulted in the adaptation of early ranchers of
so driving cattle up into the surrounding high mountains of the west, north and south. This allowed them to
5 1 . harvest home pastures and access lush patches of meadow with more moisture available at higher elevations
52 with a later melting snow pack. In tum, this fostered the cultural and social tradition of the cattle drive and
53 roundup, and competitions for skill performance, such as the rodeo.
54
55 Although the season of use has been restricted to late summer and fall, and the allotments are generally
56 restricted. many tiublic land ranchina fi~milies ofthe co~?ntv tod~v iv~e the ~me r;~no~I~nd ~ ~r ~
PAGE 32 Show Image
&iskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 32
I did (heir ancestors. Althouali hiohw ay use pefmi~s and ~ have begun to impact the practice in ~avo
2 of large cattle tnicks, many public land grazes still drive their herds to their allotments. With a warnino car a
the head and rear, family and friends on horseback with dogs nudge the slow-mooooving procession alon£
4 back country roads to trails leading to their allotments Most still monitor rangelands and move salt blocks on
S horseback. [n the fall, they still (ound-up ~e herd, search for stray and drive them back to home pasture
6 Calves are usually bom in late spring, weaned in the fall and sold before winter in rhythm with the orazino
7 cycle. Like those of five generations ago, facing the same limiting factors of climate, topography and space.
8 public graders continue to employ the same adaptations.
9
I 0 Firtli also discusses the cultural charactenstics of social oQ0anization that creates a sense of kinship or tribe~~.
l 1 social position, status or function, and acts as the motivation for behaviors and other cultural manifestations.
12
I 3 Agriculturalist tend to go tlirough their lives in *~age sets,~ bonded by repeated shared experiences in 4-H.
14 sports, Future Faders of Amenca rodeo and other competitions. As adults, they rotate through boards
I S together such as Fair Boards, Rodeo Associations, irrigation Districts, Resource and Conservation Districts.
I 6 ~ey belong to "clubs" comprised mostly of others of the "lifeway" such as Young Farmers and Ranchers.
l 7 Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association, Grange and Growers Associations.
18
1 9 ~e customs associated with agnculture include many of the early possessor rights that were reco~~nized and
20 respected as local practices, sometimes supported by f~)rmally Associations and sometimes acknowledged in
2 1 law. Examples include the establishment of gr~ing allotments tied to a family base ranch, water use rights
22 that developed into law, and public rights ofway over public land.
23
24 Agriculture has been a long time traditional land use and lifeway in Siskiyou County and has come to firm a
25 major component of local cultural celebrations and the economy. It is important that the many elements
26 associated with agricultural land, water use, rights of way and easements be recognized and preserved as
27 necessary to support this valuable aspect ofthe heritage ofSiskiyou County.
28
29
30
PAGE 33 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 33
I Appendix 5 Customs and Culture - Farming
2 HISTORICAL NOTES
3 Sectional variations in physical characteristics naturally divide Siskiyou Count' into four identifi~bl areas
4 where fanning has played a significant historical role: Shasta Valley; Scott Valley'; Butte Valley: a£~d the
S Tule Lake or Upper Klarnatli Basin The following spot sketches are meant only as an illustrative sample
6 ofthe history offanning trends in Siskiyou County:
7
8 SHASTAVALLEY:
9 PASTUkE Robert Martin has been credited with being the first rancher in Shasta Valley, establishing the
10 Table Rock Ranch in 1849. The 3,500 acre Brady Ranch near Gazelle is also considered one ofthe earliest
I l ranches It was later purchased by Josiah Edson in 1852. It should be noted that most early ranches did
12 not have enclosed pastures, leaving stock vulnerable to Indian raids ln 1 85 1 , Indians drove off 2u~~ head
13 ofminer's horses being herded in open range. (Please see separate sections on Rancliin~ and WaL~- Use.)
14
15 FIELD AND RO\V CROPS As early as 1851;land claims were taken up in the Shasta Valley. Tne first
16 "crop" was grass hay cut for the Yreka market. In 1852, William and Jackson Brown are said to have
17 raised a crop in at Butteville, (a.k.a. Edgewood or Cavanaugh's.) Ale' Boles also began a farmin£
I 8 operation in 1 852, raising wheat, barley, oats and vegetables.
19
20 By 1853, amounts ofbarley, oats and wheat were raised in Shasta Valley. In 1853, crops were raised by
21 John B. Rohrer, the Davis Brothers and John Kegg in Little Shasta. Fire destroyed all but Rohrers crops.
22 In 1856, Henry Davis planted his first grain crop in Shasta Valley, but it did poorly because of
23 grasshoppers. One morning the family awoke to find that their field had been set afire by Indians
24 harvesting roasted grasshoppers from the fields.
25 By 1861, the William Miller ranch in Little Shasta was reported to be producing as much as 40 bushels of
26 wheat an acre and three tons ofhay an acre. There were three cuttings ofhay per year, all consumed by his
27 cattle. Around 1 870, August Louie and Joe Rose purchased "squatters rights" from claimants at Bi~
28 Springs and established homesteads. Both families raised tons ofpotatoes, watermelons, dry beans. fava
29 beans, onions, cabbages, corn, squash, garlic, saffron, cumin seed, and red and green peppers. ~en the
30 railroad arrived at Gazelle, they sold Red Top, Timothy and tons ofhay to the cattle dealers. In the 1890s,
31 they grew alfalfa.
32
33 In 1912, Jim Burns, Bill Wilson and Edward Stallcup formed a corporation known as Edward Stallcup and
34 Sons, Co., Inc., which, in addition to supplying feed for their o'vn cattle at Big Springs and 1 50 head of
35 boarded horses, sold as much as 1,000 tons ofhay each year to the Weed Lumber Co. In addition to the
36 StaIlcup sons, John, Joe and Tom, 15 men were hired during the summer for haying.
37 In 1853, Ch&les Schlicht began construction ofa flour mill on the Shasta River. In 1861, the Yreka Steam
38 Mills ran regularly and were said to he capable ofgrinding 16,000 pounds offlour daily, when necess~e'.
39 Another flour mill was located at Tailholt in Little Shasta~ (By 1878, there werc seven grist mills in the
40 entire county two steam and five water power driven. These produced 2 l ,OOO barrels of flour and ground
4 1 2,800 bushels ofcom.) By 1 885, there were ako two breweries in Yrek~
42
43 ORCHARDS Forest House or Forest Ranch was established on the Yreka side ofForest Mountain by
44 Horace Knights in 1851. By 18S2, there was a distillery. A large orchard had been planted by 1861,
45 ihcluding pears, peaches, plums and more than 4,000 apple trees, (250 of which were already productive.)
46 In I 869, the orchards at Forest House were expanded and a cider mill with two large wooden wheek was
47 added along with a vinegar room. Thejuice was concentrated by boiling for shipping. By 1873, Forcst
48 . House yielded a yearly product of fi~iit totalling 6,000 bushels.
49
50 By 1 86 1 , Batterton had also established an orchard in Shasta Valley and the Edson Ranch included a large
5 1 orchard planted in I 865. Nelson H. Eddy raised fruit on his ranch, established near the foot of Mt. Shasta
52 in 1867.
PAGE 34 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 34
I SCOTTVALLEY:
~ PASTURE As early as 1850, Pool and Wicks had established a land claim in Scott Valley with a corral to
) graze cattle for meat for the miners at Scott Bar (See separate section on Ranching and \Vater Use.)
4
5 FIELD CROPS The first oats oro~ ~ in Siskiyou Cotinty ~~~ere bro~gl~t from Oregon in I ~ I and sown by
6 Robinson, Brown and Godfrey on the Star Ranch in Scott Valley. In 1852, Godfrey brought one bushel of
7 planting wheat from the Suisun Valley by pack mule to Shasta Valley, and then through the snow to Scott
8 Valley. It produced a crop ofSO bushels. In the following year, P.A. Heartstrand and Asa \Vhite brought
9 30 mule loads ofwheat to Scott Valley for planting. In I 852, John McKee homesteaded a large tract of
10 land in Scott Valley. The land was later subdivided into several fanns including those ofPeter Smith, Rev.
I I D.H. Lowry, O.V. Green and John and Stafford Wilson. Farming was also taken up in 1852 by Winegar,
12 Glendenning, Kidder and Calhoun. By 1853, considerable arnounts ofbarley, oats and wheat were raised
13 in Scott Valley. By 1877, a harvest ofat least 250,000 bushels ofgrain were anticipated in Scott Valley
l 4 and four steam threshers were in operation. Of note, in 1917, during W~
VI, seed from the alfalfa grown on
15 the d~ land ofNoyes Valley brought a premium price because ofits characteristic ofgro~vth in arid
16 ~
17
1 8 The Lafayette/ShoreslPhoenix flour mill was the first grist mill in Siskiyou County, erected in Scott Valley
19 in 1853. In 1954, Charles McDermit, Jeremiah, William and D.M. Davidson built the "Old Aetna Mills"
20 and distillery. In I 855, P.A. Heartstrand, Abisha Swain, Obediah Baer and James Stevens built the `tRough
21 and Ready Flour Mill' near Etna. In 1860, the Festus Payne grist mill was built in French Creek. It was
22 operated by a hurdy gurdy" water wheel along with a saw mill. In 1865, Joseph Young and his brother,
23 the Swain brothers and George Smith purchased the machinery ofthe flour mill in Yreka for their mill in
24 Rough and Ready, which they operated by steam. The "Union", the principal flour mill at Rough and
25 ReadylEtna, had a capacity of3O,OOO bushels a day.
26
27 The "Farmers Flour Mill" in Fort Jones was built as a cooperative association of farmers and merchants to
28 protect themselves against the four combined flour mills then in operation at Rough and ReadylEtna, which
29 controlled the price ofwheat. Later, in 1919, the Parrott flour mill was built by Charles B. Parrott and John
30 Johnson in Etna, producing "Flavo Flour" and grinding feed for fanners. It was closed in 1931.
31
32 In 1854, Jeremiah Davidson and William Miller built a distillery on \Vhiskey Creek operated by Ensign
33 "Whiskey" Smith. In 1 868, C. Kappler purchased a brewery from P. A. Heartstrand on the east side of
34 Scott Valley about three miles from Rough and Ready. In 1872, he moved the brewery to Rough & Ready.
35 A fire destroyed the original building in 1 875 and a larger one was built. Kappler's brewery had four beer
36 wagons and it is said his business netted a quai~er ofa million dollars annually.
37
38 BUTTE VALLEY:
39 There are numerous accounts of immigrant trains that reached Yreka bcginning in 1 852 over the Yreka
40 Trail, which passed through Butte Valley. This branched from the Applegate Trailjust west ofthe divide
4 1 between Willow Creek and Laird's Landing on the Lower Klamath Lake, turning soudiward until it met the
42 old trapper's trail coming down from Military Pass.
43
44 Settlement of Butte Valley itself, however, was hampered by fear of Indian raids and lack ofwater. It was
45 called the "Desert" for many years. Early agricultural use was limited to ranching, although thousands of
46 tons ofnatu~l g,rass hay were harvested at early ranches established in 1862 on the west side ofButte
47 Valley. (See separate section on Ranching and Water Use.)
48
49 : FIELD CROPS: In 1876, crops grown on the Julius Russell homestead 6n Butte Creek were reported as
50 timothy, red top~ oats for hay, wheat and barley, which were cut by a reaper and later stacked and threshed
S I by machine. Some grain was hauled to the granary for home use and the rest to the grist mill in Little
52 Shasta and sold. By 1903, there were 1 1,000 acres ofdry-land farming producing alfalfa hay and grain.
53
PAGE 35 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 35
I In 1 906, the extensive Butte Valley landlioldings of Miller and Lux were sold to the (Southern) Pacific
2 Improvement Co. Much ofthis was sold to William Macdoel and the Butte Valley Land Company. It was
3 then cut up into small farms and sold largely to farmers who were members ofthe Church ofthe Brethren
4 (or Dunkards.") Various plans for groundwater and surface water irrigation systems failed and many left
5 bankrupt. An attempt by the Bureau ofReclamation to channel waters ofAntelope, Butte and Bear Creeks
6 to Macdoel met with similar failure in 1920.
7
8 Butte Valley Irrigation District (BVID) was formed in 1921. Due to insufficient surface water available to
9 landowners in the district, a bond was floated for S547,000 in I 923 to divert water from Shovel Creek to
10 irrigate ta~ land within the (BVID). After the project was completed, the creek went dry and most
1 1 flirmers lost their land and were forced to leave the area. In 1929, BVID drilled the first irric'ation well.
12 The BVID continued to drill wells as the surface water decreased each year.26 In the 1950s, with
1 3 formation of a successful Irrigation District utilizing deep wells, hundreds of acres had been cleared,.
14 leveled and brought into productivity in alfalfa, grains and potatoes.
15
16 In 1937, the Bankhead4ones Farm Tenant Act, Title III authorized purchase ofsubmarginal, erosion prone
1 7 flirmlands to retire from agncultural developmenL Approximately 1 8,425 acres to the east of Meiss Lake
I 8 were acquired under this act. They were administered by the Soil Conservation Service until I 950, and
19 formally designated as National Grasslands administered by the U.S. Forest Service in 1991.
20
21 ORCHAI~DS AND ROW CROPS: For a briefperiod in the 1880s, a group ofsettlers from Pennsylvania
22 attempted to fence the open range and grow oranges. This enterpnse failed and the settlements were
23 abandoned. By 1903, \Vheeler's Nursery employed 300 men in growing and marketing 15 million
24 strawberry plants to southern California and Sacramento.
25
26 TULE LAKEJUPPER KLAMATH BASIN:
27 Many immigrants to California took the Applegate Trail, following the eastern shore ofTule Lake. In
28 I 849, the first ofmany violent deaths by raiding tribes occurred between Goose Lake and Tule Lake
29 giving the area the name "Bloody PoinL" Early settlement was limited, first by tribal raids, then by lack of
30 water, short growing seas6n and inhospitable climate. (See separate section on Ranching.)
31
32 By 1 867, the former Modoc tribal lands around Klamath Lakes and Lost River had been settled by many
33 immigrants. Lingering Indians were removed to the Klamath Reservation in I 869, but a group under
34 Captain Jack returned to the area, eventually resulting in tile Modoc War of 1872-3.
35
36 CROPS: In 1 899, Milo and Alice Coppock homesteaded land on the Sand Strip or Peninsula at the
37 southeast end ofTulelake, where they g[~W vegetables and fhii~ In 1907, J. Frank Adams, Ch&les L
38 Moore, E.P McComack, Alexander Martin, Alexander Maitin k. and Ruftis Moore formed the Lakeside
39 Company, purchasing an initial 6,500 acres from the Tule Lake Land and Livestock Co. on the north end
40 ofTule Lake. The company interested The Bohemian Colonization Club ofOmaha, Nebraska, in
41 establishing a Czechoslovakian community on the site (Malin, 9regon) in 1909-10. Despite wind, frost,
42 thousands ofjack rabbits and flocks ofbizxis, the colony was successfti1, growing potatoes, beets, wheat,
43 oats, rye and hay, as well as garden vegetables.
44
45 Experiments on the new Klamath Prqjcct homesteads (see section below) in raising VariOUS cmps
46 concluded that potatoes, onions, horseradish and cereal crops were most able to survive the climate and
47 find a profitable marker Tule Lake fartners sustained devastating crop loss when their barley and wheat
48 fields proved atfractive feeding grounds for thousands ofducks and geese. Various unsuccessfiil attempts
26 Oct. 9, 1992 letter from Theodore Risner1 Water Master, BVID.
PAGE 36 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 36
I were made to dissuade the birds, includiug: flring shotguns loaded with blanks; using planes to bu~ Fields;
2 air dropping firecracker-type noisemakers; and using a mobile searchlight to roust night feeding birds27
4 [n 1940, Earl Ager moved his grocer)' and general store to Tulelake. It has been described as the "\Vall
S Street ofwestern barley, the crying wall ofthe potato industry..." In 1993, 19,532 acres ofleaselands in
6 Siskiyou and Modoc Counties generated $15,796,785 in crop sales. In the Klamath basin, onion
7 production has been centered on the leaselands and the area is considered to be excellent for beet
8 production, introduced around 1991. Potatoes are a large crop in the basin, with 40% ofCalifornia's fresh
9 potatoes ono
~inating there. Nearly 45% ofthe nation's horseradish is also grown here. Grains are also
10 grown with maintenance ofspecial habitat buffers and residual grains left for bird feeding under
I I government programs
12
13 EARLYRECLAMATION EFFORTS:
14 In 1862 and 1866, John A. Fairchild had secured grazing privileges into the eastern part ofButte Valley
l S through private treat)' with the Modoc Indians. (See separate section on Ranching.) When his partnership
16 with Si Doten, dissolved, he repined 17,000 acres called J.F. Ranch, a considerable portion ofwhich was
1 7 covered by Lower Klamath Lake. He reclaimed a large area through drainage, turning it into rich pasture
I 8 land. In 1 868, the Langell family began to rechannel the Lost River, reclaiming nearly 4,000 acres of land
19 for faring and ranching over the border in Oregon. In the 1870s, lames Poe rechanneled the Lost River
20 in Oregon, downstream from Langell's, to reclaim swampland for farming. (See separate section on \Vater
21 Use.)
22
23 KLAMATH RECLAMATION PROJECT:
24 In 1904, Reclamation Service Director Frederick Newell presented a proposal to reclaim marshlands in the
25 upper Klamath Basin for agriculture. In February of 1905, California relinquished ownership of Clear
26 Lake, Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake to the federal government. In addition, Congress passed
27 legislation to permit the draining ofthe lakes and cessation ofnavigation. The Bureau of Reclamation
28 (BoR) began construction in 1906, with the draining ofTule Lake beginning in 1907. Through diversion
29 of Lost River water into the Klamath River, drainage through holes in the lava at Scorpion Point and
30 evaporation, Tule Lake was reduced in size from 98,600 to 68,000 acres between 1907 and 1919, and
3 1 parcels opened for homestead in phases.
32
33 Portions ofthe Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge system that are located in Siskiyou County include
34 Lower Klamath and Tule Lake In I 908, Executive Order #924 preserved islands and marshlands
35 unsuitable for agriculture for bird habitat in the Lower Klamath Reflige. In 19 12, the Northeastem
36 Railroad was permitted to build a causeway across the northwestern end of Lower Klamath Lake, which
37 cut off the lake from its main source of water. The Lower Klamath Lake was originally 8 l ,6 1 9 acres in
38 size. When drained, the northern end ofthe lake proved suitable for fanning, but the southern end was
39 heavy with alkali. By the 1920s, peat fires started in the lake bed, burning to a depth ofsix feet or more in
40 some areas. [n the aftermath, a large alkaline, ashy lake bed choked the region with dust clouds. Due to
4 1 detenoration ofthe water quality ofthe lake and spread ofavian botulism, some ofthe drained land was re-
42 flooded.
43
44 In 1928, Executive Order #497S set aside the 10,300 acre Tule Lake Bird Reflige. When Tule Lake was
45 drained, 37,000 acres ofTule Lake had been set aside as an evaporation sump, but in the 1930s1 most of the
27
Responding to a negative article published in the San Francisco Chronicle in 195 1 conceniiiig the
impact of farini~~g on the Tule Lake Reflige, local editor, John B. Edmonds of The Tulelake Reporter stated:
our ranchers pay and pay again with thousands of bushels of grain consumed each year off private farm
land. . Not a 30,OOO acre refuge, Mr. Thomas; no rather a 93,000 acre paradise of water and grain and
clover on which these birds feed each spring and fall at our expense.
PAGE 37 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 37
I land was not under water and was leased for fanniand. [rrigation on the homesteads threatened the
2 leaselands with flooding and a pump and tunnel was constructed to the Lower Kiamath By connecting the
3 sump with Lower Kiamath Lake by tunnel and a pumping facility in 1942, the Tule Sump was reduced to
4 1 7,000 acres with leaseland farming on the remaining lands. mm- l 65
5
6 The new agricultural lands gradually created by the Klamath Project were homesteaded through a series of
7 open allotments beginning in 19 1 7. (Most ofthe homesteads awarded after 192 1 were in California.)
S Applicants had to nieet certain criteria to qualify, and preference was given to veterans of both \VWI and
9 WWII. In 1929, the tradition ofdrawing names from ~ e ligible applicants ~vas begun. ~e 1 946
I 0 lottery drawing was aired live throughout the west coast through radio hook-up. The last homestead was
I I awarded in I 949 to Ernest L. Tacker of ~emet. (Due to its high alkali content1 it had been refused by 20
I 2 prior alternates.) As the Klamath Project extends into southern Oregon and Modoc Count, many farmers
I 3 also leave ties to those regions. In fact, it is not uncommon for a Siskivou
County farm to have one or more
I 4 operations situated in another of these locations.
15
1 6 After tl~e last homestead period, I 3,000 acres under Bokjurisdiction remained reserved from homestead
1 7 and maintained under lease. [n 1 95 1 , the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced intention to exclusively
I 8 manage I 5,253 acres of land in the Tule Lake Basin, including the areas known as 2,500 acre "League of
I 9 ~ and "Frog Pond'~ which had been under consideration for homestead.
20
2 1 Protests were raised based on the question oforiginal intent ofState transfer oftitle to the federal
~ ~overnnient in regard to purposes ofhomesteading. This led to clari~ing legislation known as the 1964
23 Kuchel Act (Public Law 88-567,) which states that leaselands are `~dedicated to wildlife conservation, but
24 with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith."
25
26 In 1977, an agreement between the BoR and the Tule Lake Refuge acknowledged that: 1) the US Fish and
27 Wildlife Service (USF&WS) was in charge ofadministering the land and water within the boundaries of
28 the refuge and that their decisions affecting this area were binding; and 2) the Bok would prepare and
29 conduct leasing programs on the land designated for agricultural use within the refuge, under the approval
30 ofthe USF&WS. In 1980, the refuge expanded to include land encompassing the "Peninsula" so that
3 1 currently, the Tule Lake Refuge encompassed 38,908 acres; 1 5,270 ofwhich are leased to farmers residing
32 within a 50 mile radius ofthe refuge on a five year basis and 1,400 acres ofwhich are planted in barley as a
33 buffer to attract feeding winter fowl.
34
35 The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Reftige now stands at 47,600 acres, and is a mixture of shallow
36 marshes, open water, grassy uplands and cr6plands. There are 6,900 acres of leaselands on the lower
37 Klamath Refuge. According to the Tulelake Growers Association, potatoes account for only 13% of the
38 crops grown on 22,000 acres of lease land in the refliges, yet generates nearly 60% ofthe S 1 5.7 million in
39 receipts for farmers leasing this land in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties.28 (Please see Attachment D.)
40
41 HISTORICAL STATISTICS:
42 (Please see the following "attachments" on historical estimates on acreage and crop production excerpted
43 from the Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Uvestock Reports, I9S7~l994.) It should be noted that more
44 recent developments in fanning in Siskiyou County have included the establishment ofwineries, (where
45 micro~Iimates have permitted,) nurseries for reforestation stock, medicinal herbs and the application of
46 organic fanning practices.
47
28
Statistics taken from a Feb~ 14, 1994 letter from the Tulelake Growers Association to
Congressman Wally Herger.
PAGE 38 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 38
I *`RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE":
2 On September 25, 1 990, the County of Siskiyou passed Ordinance 90-28 adding Chapter l I to Title I 0 of
~ the Siskiyou County Code or `1Right to Farm Ordinance
4
S Section 1 0- 1 l 02 states: "It is the purpose and intent of this section to reduce loss to the County of its
6 agncultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be considered
7 a nuisance.
S
9 Section 10- 1 1 .03 states: 1'No agncultural activity, operation or facility or appurtenances thereof, conducted
I 0 or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and
I I standards and with all chapters ofSiskiyou County code, as established and followed by similar
1 2 agricultural operations, shall be or become a nuisance, public or private, pursuant to the Siskiyou County
I 3 Code after the same has been in operation for more than three years, if it was not a nuisance when it
14 bezan."
IS
16 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
17 The availability ofsuitable soils, climate and water ofsufficient quaiitity and quality arc hindamental to
I 8 farming. where environmental, land use or government fairri program regulation does not otherwise
I 9 intrude, the decision by a modem fanner to bring or maintain a particular piece of land in production
20 depends on a number of additional factors: ( 1 ) access to reliable resources in order to acquire necessary
21 production "inputs"29 ; (2) the amount ofeapital investment required for necessazy production "inputs";
22 (3) reliability ofcrop yield or "output" 30 ; (4) marketability ofproduct, including market price.
23
24 A commercial farmer will not generally bring a particular piece of land into production where there is no
25 foreseeable profit in doing so The balance of profit, loss and the weighing of risk variables is further
26 complicated when the crop is to be utilize as an input for another end-product, such as livestock, or when
27 it is a long-lived perennial crop, such as alfalfa or pasture.
28
29 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS: 31
30 LITTLE SHASTA RIVER:
3 1 The source area ofthe Little Shasta River is marked by soil ofa coarse texture descnbed as sandy and
32 stony in nature and from material derived from volcanic ash. The soil in tlliis area ranges frorn well~kaincd
33 to excessively drained and is slightly to strongly acii The underlying geology is igneous rock from lava
34 flows - basalt or andesite. Moving into the valley edge, the soil becomes neutral to mildly alkaline in
35 nature.
36
29
This would include such ujflp~tsu as skill, experience, parts, capital and financi~, labor, costs of land,
nutrients, ~cides, equipment, transportation, processing and storage facilities, structural improvements,
water delivery systern~, seed, packaging, etc.
30 mis wotild include risk factors such as crimatic and natural events, disease, pestileoce and loss by
wildlife, reliability of water supply, etc.
31 SOIL'~~SURVEY OF SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIFORNIA. CENTRAL PART USDA Soil
Conservation Service, 1983.
PAGE 39 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 39
I Terraces on the north side oftue river range from mildly alkaline to mildly acid in the top several inches
2 and neutral underneath. The soil is stony, well drained and overlies a silica cemented hardpan.
4 On the south side ofthe river there are large sections of"Gazelle" type soil. The water table is quite high
5 here and the soil depth no more than 25 inches, underlain with a silica and calcium carbonate cemented
6 liardpan with some disseminated lime. It has a strong saline alkali nature with concentrations ofsalts in the
7 surface layer. It erodes easily. There is frequent prolonged flooding ofthese areas from November to
S Ma\'.
9
10, SfiASTAR[VER:
l l Soils at the source ofShasta River are similar to those found at the source ofthe Little Shasta River, and
12 continue to have, for the most part, similar characteristics as described above in the first three paragraphs
I 3 relating to the Little Shasta.
14 There are, however, some pockets of"Gazelle' type soils on the southwestem side ofthe Shasta River.
15
16 Soils on the northeastem side ofthe nver, at its confluence with the Little S
hasta, are poorly drained with
17 occasional briefperiods offlooding from January March. These soils erode easily and are mildly to
18 moderately alkaline overlying, in some areas, a layer of peat.
19
20 SCOTT R[VI£R:
21 EASTERN DRAINAGE Soils at the source ofthe Scott River in the eastem drainage ofthe Scott Valley
22 are well drained, sandy and gravelly. They are underlain by metamorphic or fractured metasedimentary
23 bedrock. The PH ranges from slightly to strongly acid. The area is marked by perennial stream and wet
24 meadows. There are three minor areas in the southeast ofrock outcroppings with shallow variably textured
25 soil which is excessively drained.
26
27 The alluvial fan above the flood plain to the east and north ofthe Scott River varies from well drained
28 gravelly loam to sandy clay. Acidity varies from slight to medium, although there are pockets of
29 "Medford'~ clay loam which is moderately alkaline and calcereous. Soil in this area erodes easily and is
30 "droughty.4'
31
32 NORTH AND SOUTHWESTERN DRAINAGE Source soil in this area includes well drained gravelly
33 loam underlain by weathered schist or hard metamorphasized siltstone. It is medium acid and tends to be
34 "droughty."
35
36 OF SPECIAL NOTE The French Creek drainage to the south has been the subject of a special study due
37 to highly erodible granitic soils. The Scott Mountain Crest is known for its serpentine soil, a rare type of
38 soil high in magnesium, nickle and chromium, but low in calcium. (From interview with USFS Klamath
39 National Forest Botanist Barbara Williams, I 991.)
40
4 1 FLOOD PLAIN Soils along the flood plain of the Scott River are poorly to somewhat poorly drained.
42 There is a high water table in the area near the surface from December through June. It is subject to
43 occasional flooding from sno~melt or rainfall from January through March. Soils tend to be mildly to
44 moderately alkaline.
45
PAGE 40 Show Image
Sisklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management P[an
Februa~ 1996
page 40
` BUTTE VALLEY:32
2 Butte Valley was once covefed by a Large Pleistocene Lake ofapproximately 130 square miles, which
~ apparent[y drained to the noah through Sam's Neck. As the valley dropped and the adjacent fault block
4 mountains uplifted, Butte Valley became a closed drainage basin. After the Pleistocene period, the historic
S Meiss Lake once covered approximately 66 square miles along the 4,240-foot elevation contour to what is
6 now the town ofDorrjs. tn historic times, the lake has covered about 16 square miles, which coincides
7 with the 4,234-foot elevation contour.
S
9 One remarkable feature ofButte Valley is its relative flatness. Elevations in the enclosed broad valley'
10 basin range from 4,226 to 4,236 feeL The majority ofland west ofMeiss Lake have a slope ofone foot of
I I fall for every 2,000 feet. rile on the north and east sides of Meiss Lake, the topography is slightly'
12 steeper with one foot offall for every 575 and 550 feet, respectively. Elevations ofsurrounding foothills
I 3 range from 4,236 to 5,200 feet. Ikes and Butte mountains (elevations: 5,493 feet and 6,900 feet,
14 respectively) to the west and Ball Mountain (elevation: 7,780 feet) to the southwest are prominent features 1;
I S of the Cascade Range adjacent to the Valley.
16
17 Within the valley, a cemented hardpan is found at a range ofsix inches to several feet beneath most soils.
18 The hardpan is particularly close to the surface in the Meiss Lake basin. As soil permeability is naturally
I 9 poor, salt and alkali accumulate. In adjacent cropland, fields are leached through deep canals to decrease
20 salts and alkali and the hardpan is ripped periodically to improve rooting depth and drainage. In addition,
21 much ofButte Valley' is highly prone to wind erosion.
22
23 CLIMATIC CHARACTERISTICS:
24 The range ofcrops that can be successtully grown in Siskiyou County is constrained by limitations of
25 climate. Barring small pockets where micro-climates may vary, the fbllowing are benchmark statistics
26 applicable to the valley agricultural centers ofSiskiyou County33
27 (1) SLIASTA VALLEY elevation 2,640 feet; 143 days 32 degree growing season and 175 days
28 28 degree growing season; annual precipitation 12. 12 and annual snowfall 8.9 inches.
29 (2) SCO~FF VALLEY - elevation 2,747 feet; 100 days in 32 degree growing season and 143 days
30 28 degree growing season; annual precipitation 21.78 and annual snowfall 30.4 inches.
3 1 (3) BUTFE VALLEY - elevation 4,250 feet; 27 days in 32 degree growing season and 8 l days in
32 28 degree growing season; annual precipitation I0.g9 and annual snowfall 27.6 inches.
33 (4) TULE LAKEJUPPER KLAMATH BASIN- elevation 4,036 feet; 82 days in 32 degree
34 growing season and I 13 days in 28 degree growing season; annual precipitation 10.21 inches and annual
35 snowfall 23.5 inches.
36
37 WATER AVAILABILITY
38 (See separate section on Water Use.)
39
40
41
42
32
California Department of Fish and Game Butte Valley Wildlife Area Management Plan. prepared by
Kit Novick, Wildlife Habitat Supervisor II, 1992.
33
Sislcivou Cowit"' Annual Crop and bvestock Report, Siskiyou County Department of Agriculture,
`994.
PAGE 41 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 41
I ~TT~CHMENT A
2
3 ACRES PRIVATE LAND ALLOCATED TO HAY & FEED CROPS*
4
5 ALFLAFA OTHER BARLEY
6 ~JHEAT
7 YEAR HAY HAY OATS FEED
8 FEED
9
10 1957 34,000 11,000 13,000 37,350 i8~482
Ii 1959 34,000 25,000 11,067 33g611 13~488
12 1960 37,000 25,000 14~O85 28g689 12,000
13 1961 41,000 18,000 14,000 32,100 12,100
14 1962 40,000 20,000 10,000 17,000 7,550
15 1965 47,000 21,800 2,750 18,400 7,200
16 19G6 50,200 22,500 3,000 14,800 7~500
17 1967 43,000 23,500 2,400 111000 10,000
18 1968 42,700 44,000 5,500 18,200 10,000
19 1970 53,000 38,000 5,000 19,600 10,000
20 1971 51,700 38,000 9,600 21,500 9,000
21 1972 53,900 23,000 8,000 21,800 13,000
22 1973 55,000 48,000 7,000 20,000 15,000
23 1974 56,900 43,000 7,500 22,800 18,000
24 1975 61,500 34,400 9,000 21,000 17,000
25 1976 68,700 36,000 8,000 20,600 18,000
26 1977 68,400 32,800 12,000 22,200 13,900
27 1978 70,000 3G,000 11,200 22,600 12,000
28 1979 69,100 35,200 11,600 25,100 13,700
29 1980 75,400 35,500 12,200 27,458 14,900
30 1981 74,700 34,400 15,600 3A,700 14,400
31 1983 74,000 30,000 14,000 44,500 14,900
32 1984 72,000 30,200 8,500 33,400 15,000
33 1985 71,192 21,100 8,210 41,872 14,500
34 1986 73,523 31,549 8,058 27,175 12,300
35 1987 73,820 30,271 7,075 29,340 10,410
36 1988 73,152 31,276 7,693 24,761 12,302
37 1989 74,339 30,350 9,372 22,770 12,391
38 1990 74,547 29,426 8,289 16,903 10,457
39 1991 77,418 29,577 9,325 15,419 8,726
40 1992** 49,614 23,100 5,761 16,915 6,458
41 1993 51,640 22,000 5,501 15,516 5,452
42 1994 49,574 20,500 3,540 12.090 4,652
43
44 * Source Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report, data is as of
4S year-end
46 ** reflects more accurate acreage accounting methods
47
48 NoTE: Alfalfa is a perennial crop of 5-8 years with a harvest of three
49 to four times a year. Grain is commonly used as a rotation crop of 1-2
50 years betwee~n alfalfa crops.
51
52
53
54
55
PAGE 42 Show Image
Siskiyou COuNty Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 42
1 ~FP~~HMENT 13
9
ACRES OF PRIVATE LAND ALLOCATED TO PASTURE*
4
S
RANGE IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATD STUBBLE GRATN
6 Y£Ak PASTURE PASTU?E PAsTU~~:- PASTURE PASTURE
7
8 1957 400,000 77~OOO 5O~OOO
9 1959 400,000 8O~OOO 130,000
10 1960 400,000 87,000 130,000
11 1961 400,000 130,000
12 19~2 450,000 82,000 84,000 76,000 1,100
13 1965 450,000 72,SOO 87,000 82,000 1,800
14 1966 450,000 67,000 87,500 50,000 1,800
15 1967 450,000 70,000 85,000 30,000 2,500
16 1968 430,000 62,600 74,000 19,000 4,000
17 1970 455,000 80,000 116,000 20,000 3,000
18 1971 400,000 100,000 130,000 20,000 2,000
19 1972 400,000 103,800 130,000 20,000 2,500
20 1973 400,000 103,500 133,000 20,000 3,000
21 1974 450,000 101,000 125,000 20,000 3,000
22 1975 450,000 101,000 127,000 11,000 3,000
23 1976 450,000 101,000 127,000 12,000 3,000
24 1977 450,000 101,600 125,000 9,000 5,000
25 1978 450,000 103,000 126,000 11,000 3,000
26 1979 450,000 101,000 140,000 9,500 5,500
27 1980 450,000 104,300 140,000 9,500 5,500
28 1981 450,000 104,300 140,000 9,500 5,500
29 1983 450,000 104,000 140,000 6,000 1,000
30 1984 450,000 104,000 140,000 6,000 1,000
31 1985 450,000 104,000 140,000 6,000 1,000
32 1986 445,000 103,000 140,000 6,500 1,000
33 1987 445,000 103,000 140,000 6,500 1,000
34 1988 445,000 100,000 140,000 7,500 1,000
35 1989 445,000 100,000 140,000 7,000 1,000
36 1990 445,000 1001000 140,000 6,000 1,000
37 1991 445,000 95,000 145,000 7,000 1,000
38 1992** 445,000 90,000 150,000
39 1993 445,000 90,000 1501000
40 1994 445,000 90,000 150,000
41
42 * Source Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report, data is as of
43 year-end
44 ** Reflects more accurate accounting methods for acreage
4S
46 NOTE: A mixed grass/clover pasture is a perennial crop of 20 years or
47 longer.
48
49
so
PAGE 43 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resouce Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 43
I ~ C
2
vALUATIO~*
4
S YEAR FIELD VEGETABLE LIVESTOCK MILK,WOOL & TOTAL
6 CROPS CROPS POULTRY AGRICULTURE
7
8 1957 1O~9O4,268
G~6O1,151 799~OOO 19,635,303
9 1958 8,804,864 1,265,272 7,208,460 736,180 19,496,450
10 1959 9,827,861 2,260,393 6,656,627 812,000 21,168,196
II 1960 9,457,400 1,783,000 6,779,650 853,000 20,853,450
12 1961 10,510,560 2,178,200 7,008,500 747,800 22,487,660
13 1962 12,772,700 2,600,800 8,433,200 788,000 26,418,950
14 1963 14,800,000 3,101,100 8;469,250 1,234,500 29,825,700
15 1964 15,200,000 5,660,000 8,615,000 1,255,400 34,980,115
16 1965 13,766,100 3,877,300 10,840,050 1,330,800 32,551,530
17 1966 13,423,000 5,172,000 10,969,800 869,340 34,085,680
18 1967 13,771,900 5,805,000 10,972,600 926,100 34,359,100
19 1968 13,997,500 7,036,600 14,705,600 1,043,770 40,345,570
20 1969 15,649,000 7,576,000 12,869,800 977,200 40,294,200
21 1970 16,667,000 6,917,000 12,507,000 1,235,800 40,589,500
22 1971 17,359,000 6,099,300 14,495,800 1,320,900 42,064,500
23 1972 22,287,000 7,091,000 15,095,200 1,268,000 50,313,000
24 1973 41,332,000 13,358,700 20,200,500 1,199,500 83,383,000
25 1974 47,583,600 9,104,400 11,267,800 1,407,000 76,655,800
26 1975 46,031,600 10,882,000 10,107,000 1,549,463 76,252,563
27 1976 52,164,000 8,406,000 10,874,000 2,412,000 80,553,000
28 1977 45,421,000 9,731,000 16,227,000 2,578,000 80,638,000
29 1978 48,014,000 10,582,000 21,687,000 2,027,000 89,683,000
30 1979 62,354,000 11,177,000 31,038,000 3,624,000 114,813,000
31 1980 79,001,000 20,300,000 31,472,000 4,106,000 147,133,000
32 1981 70,885,000 20,011,000 30,238,000 4,471,000 136,075,000
33 1983 83,918,000 20,924,000 34,769,000 4,067,060 150,176,000
34 1984 70,273,000 30,878,000 35,584,000 4,316,000 150,366,000
35 1985 60,696,000 9,811,000 24,406,000 4,300,000 108,490,000
36 1986 54,576,000 12,662,000 35,338,000 4,317,000 112,780,000
37 1987 56,982,000 10,600,000 48,852,000 4,579,000 125,951,000
38 1988 68,103,000 14,620,000 SO,870,000 4,482,000 143,630,000
39 1989 70,538,000 18,260,000 40,359,000 4,820,000 140,939,000
40 1990 67,852,000 18,060,000 54,770,000 4,428,000 152,149,000
41 1991 66,020,000 8,590,000 55,238,000 3,377,000 *140,915,060
42 1992 47,360,000 12,748,000 34,923,000 2,457,000 106,458,000
43 1993 51,233,000 17,132,000 35,576,000 2,061,000 114,908,000
44 1994 SO,326,000 14,859.000 35,861,000 1,946,000 112,982,000
45
46 * Source Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report, data as of
47 year-end, valuation comprised of year-end inventories times market value
48 per unit.
49 *** Excluding timber
so NOTE: 1992-reflects more accurate accounting methods for acreage
Si NOTE ALSOThe years 1957-1962 are dairy only; 1963-1969 include.poultry
52 and dairy; 1970-1994 are dairy and wool.
53 -
54
PAGE 44 Show Image
Slskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Pfan
February 1996
I ~rr~~~ENT D
REFUGE LEASELANDS+
4
S LOWER KLANATH LEASELANDS
6
7 CROP TOTAL ACRES TOTAL VALUE
8
9 Barley 3,184 $ 6O4~96O
10 Oats 1361 244,980
II Grass Hay 1940
12 Fallow 45G 378,300
13
14 Tonal 6,941 $ 1,228,240
Is
16
17 TULELAKE LEASELANDS
18
19 CROP TOTAL ACRES TOTAL VALUE
20
21 Barley G1884 $ 2,158,134
22 Oats 2,250 675,000
23 ~hea~ 1,717
24 Alfalfa 511 781,235
25 Sugar Beers 620 242,725
26 Onions 369 545,600
27 Po~a toes 2,919 788,737
28 9,359,044
29 Total 15,270
30 $ 14,550,475
31
32 1992 In Lieu of Tax
33
34 Siskiyou County $ 155,678
35 Modoc County 29,615
36 Kiamath County (Oregon) 17,210
37
38 Total $ 202,S03
39
40 *Couipiled by Thlelake Growers Association in consu1ta~ion with
41 SiskiyoulModoc County Dept. of Agriculture and U.S. Bureau of
42 Reclamation for 1993.
PAGE 45 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 45
(1
~
Public L' 58-567 --i- **~
88thCo~gress1 S. 7~3
Septcmber Z 1q64 ~ -{,\t;.½~r ~
U ~ ____ f-
78 ~TAT ~
T~ p~oct Ih~ ~a~~va(1o~ o~ ~ X~do~~s ~~ItitIiCe t~A,u~3 G~ (tit ~ci£C
~ ~ tb~ Tule T~L:~ ~ kIfi~(b. ~ kI~£d4(h :n~t C1~r ~
~ UUdtIfe ~ ~ t~ ~tJ ja ~ ~
fut~tt~c oC the )~bi~~~b (~I£go~C1~u ~
~c i£ ci'cctcd by thc Sc~'i£c cind ll~u~c of ~ of the
Ui';Icd Siot~ A n~~r;cq i~ ~ ~i~~i'~tkd TIt.~~ I~ i~ It~tti,v ~j 1~tiC4 r~-
d~IAted (0 l}e t ~ policy of tuc (;0fl~~ Ia ~.~l~iIize the ~ on
of the land i~ t~~e I~I~in~th F~C~(l r~l:tIn:(fioI1 projccc O~(~o(I ~:s(i ~tr1c r~~-
C.~tiforni~, .~ ~veI1 ~s (sit .ldlgli*113(r.i(iOlI 1(t(t S3t:'(I.1~~fll~II~ of tIt~ Co~~~~t1an
Klam~t1y F~~tr~1 ~clagia.~tiozi ~)roj~( .~iid (!~e TI(lC ~ X~~ior..~l
~Vildtife Rcfu~~ f~~v~r I~1:~8~:i(h Ntiqti~[ Wudli fe [~~fti~c, (;~~r
Klci~i.itlt X~~ion~I ~VildIife ~ .~t:d Cle-ic f~ke X~(i~i~~ ~Viltl-
Itfo Rc(u~ ~o ~~5CClft iit(~c( tuc ~ c~i~it1g l~:tbit:tt (or si~i~~-
(ory waterfo~~~ ~ tII(S ;i(~I ~1~:& 0~ ~ ?~cif~ flyw.iy, ~nd ~o
~ of niig~(o~ `vat~rfow1 o~ a0ricu1tut~1 C~O()~ 1(1 ~ie
~~cific Co~~St~tcs
$~ C) \(o~wIt1tst~ndi~ ~ny ot1~e~ p~~~io~s o( 1~w1 ~I1 Iai'd~
o~~t(i by tht ~;ni(ed ~ l~Ifl~ ~vi~ti~ (hc F~~titi~t o~i~r
boundirits of thc Tuic ~~ke ~~(ion~l Wi~(11ifC Ref~ig~ t1~ ~wt~
KI~rna~h X~tI*on~1 ~ViIdlife Refu~ tite Up~r 1(l~in~t~~ ~~tIo~I
~WzIdIi~e Refu~~ ~i'd tht ~ [~kt ~ViId1i(c 1~c~~gt ~rt he~by
dedicated to ~£Idtife ~ ~ I.~x:ds sl~.~1I be ~
by the Scc~~~ry of (lie [1iZc~io~ (O~ flic I(i:Lj()r p(1I~l)0sc of ".~te~fo"~t
flL.1~Ii~n~tt~t b&it ~it1~ full Co(t6l(l~t~tiO~ t~ o1)(ittunt ~g(tcu1tu~I use
.~ I
t'i~( ~ co~isten( tltere~i(li Sti~l~ I~itd~ 511111 ~1O( ~ 0~~cd Co home-
~cad ~ ~ follo~~-ing public l.1:I(ls 4'.i~lt ~ ~e Ijicludcd wi~~i~
the bound.~rI~ o( th~ ~ de~icat~d to i'-ildlif~ ~nser'-.~~ion1 sli.~ll ~
&dmini~trtd by the Secttt:~zy o( (lit !i~tcnor for (lee *tI~jo~piarl~~ of
~£terfowl m2ciat~~enieflC, buL ~i~idi f£:lI CQnsidc~Liof~ to 0 timunt ~
cu1tu~l use that is oocts£ste~C (li~rt'~ith. ~n~t sl~~I~ :`oL e operi~ to
homestead ent~: F[~siks M4z~h and fir~~ foci ~Itlid~~v~l l:nds
(approrim~tely one L1ious~.nd (otir htt~drcd ~iid forty ~r~) in
Kla~~th County
~VIldII.fc Rtfu~;0~~?It(e'I l~in~ `(k;t~~nt to Upj~r i(l.~flI~(lL X:1tiQ(~:Ll
in K;~tn~h (:oiIE~t; Ofl~;:vs~ ~nd
Si$kiyou County1 Cilifotnia; ftnd thirt~n c~~s ~f L~n~ in S~Ictvou
County, CaII.forni~ lcttered L~ t~cIs `£A~ "13", "C", "D"1 "E'; ~
"G"~ ~ ~I" ~3"~ "Ks, ~ and ~ £ot~in~ a~proximat~y ihrtc
iho~isand t'~ ~tzndred :u~4 ninet~-t~~ acre; and I~~cL "P" in ~(~oc
County, C&rifo~~i~ eonI:iining R~itt ten :`cr'~ ~( ~ shorn o~ ~:1(C
4 of ihe report entitled ~Pl~ fc~ Wildli(e U~ of Fedcr~1 YAnds i~
I)', Upper KIaznai~ ~ Ore~nC~ifo~i~" dated Ap~1 1KG,
prcp~rtd by d:e U:'it~ Si:atts Fish and Wildlife Semc~ AII i~
~~Yo lands s~!l remftin percvi&n~ntIy tite pcoptvty of Ilte Un:~
~
PAGE 46 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehens(ve Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
Pub ~ 885~7
Sc~ ~ Subjcc~ Co ~ Spte~~er ~ 19,64
to such t~~~I~tion3 ~s lIC~:t((cr PZ~~F(1~t1 ~iid ~
rict ~VCflU~ co?lectcd is~~cd ~y ~l~e SCC~&'a~'1 2j pe~ c~nC~iti
project (l1?r1c~~ ~`~lt ri~c:i1 ~ ~rot~t ~
r~r~'ed Fedc~ti l£~(~(I.~ ~IC1~in tJ~~ F~Cc~1c~e
orxi~~ ~u~~d,,,ri'~ of t1~ fewer l\l.it1t~Clt ~,-~tioi~~I \~rildlife I),cfu(~c
~d th~ Tu!~ [~~e N~CJ'o~~1 ~V&'1(~life R~(u~ s}~aII 1,~ ~ an~t~~~1y
~y ~Z~e S~~Ca ~ ~~j11io~~ f~i~l~er ~11~1~~fl'7AtI'On for
f
iftcr th~ ~ Act ~o the Count ie~ , e~cI~ (u[I fiSc:~l
~oc:'tc41 suc~i P;~'n~enc~ ~o ~ (1t~(1C O(~ ~ i!~ WitICli such ~ftz~~s
pro ~tr~ b:~Is to cA(:1i
1(t eac~~ CO~z~~(y: Pro~'i~?('(!,
Tl~at Cite totftl ~iinuaf P~ynicnt (3Cr ;i~r~ to C:~Ct'i COU~~(v s1~.i1~ tio~
STA~ 8~O e~c~ ~ ~ CCfl(tj:n of f~~C,~ver,(g~ per ic-re t,~.\' 1e~'ic~f on S'(nIil:[r
/~ )?A~ ~ I~Qd~ in Pnv~~c owrie~~t;'J) 1~ C:~('la CoI~iity, ~ d~tc~n~ii~cd by flee
~ PrQ~';dcd IuriAc,.~ T1i~t (~O ~ P~'ynie~ts s1~.~lt ~ ni~de
tvht'ch ~iJ~ t~duc~ t1~e cr~tIiCs or tite ~);t~'gI1e:~~s ~ (~ n~;"1c P11(~t4:t11t
to COflt~CtUfl~ obIig~(ion~ o( Cue [:viic~d ~tate,~ "*j~J~ ~!~c Tulc~:tke
~ Dz'strict Or ~ ~):ty~t1cnts to tIre I',I.'(ni,'ttli l)r~':(1.I~'e
0 1~i~trt'ct
KS, AjJ[ r~1'rnburscn~~nt for the CC11Sf~CLjO~~ ()~ i~r1~:t~tOn f:\cl'~~'ti~s
within ~~t'd dz'~~~~t1 nd t1~~t (~~e p~or5'cv of ue of ~ ~ot:~l net revs-
nuts coIIcct~ f~orn ~Iie ~e:tS~n~ o( cJ~c l.~nds dc.~cr~~t1 in tl~js sCct?oti
~halI b~ (1 ) ~o C~ed~L or ~ (ron~ ~~c1i revenuc.~ co tltC Tt~1eI~k-e
[~i'£r~tjOfl District t5~~ ~ ~I~:~dy conImit(e(t~~O SI~CIt p~ym~iit
or crediL' ~ fro~~~ ~~ch
DiStriCt £`h~ su~ of $~9~;~l5-
COtjflCj~ the ~`~OUfltS ~nd (:1) Co, p,~y fronL 3ucI~ ~venuc~ to
4, The ~ prc.~n'~~4 by tli Is SCCt'i~ri,
&~~menC. Continue, :Jie prescr~t
Sl~.'t~! Co~.~s~ent with pr~p~r ~"~t~f(ow) ~
p~trc~n (,( ~ tie ,~`r'-~? I:~nd;
~£xecuti~~ order hound~t;es o~ tl~~ T~~w?r I(J:ttrt.'tCt: ~tid T£~1c ~AI'~
of th~ ~ S~'~l~ ufl[~, ~he ,~0~*(!i'~e.~t StI~~ Cite 1'('aZ~ze (.1'
) ~&tions unit, t1~e T[enzel Ie~c, ~nd the Fr(~~ Pon
PAGE 47 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februavy 1996 page 47
Scptcrnbr Z 1964 3 Pu~ Law a8-567
7C S~ AT ~S1
~ 7. The &ec~a~ is hevtby di~(e'1 to compte(c studio th~~ *~(1ea~h st~'(t
~ beert undc~~en ~ to tb~ develo cnen~ o( th8 ~~tcr
rt5ou~ ~ ~a~r(aw[ inan.~gtmt~~ po~entia ot che CIt:r ~ko
~~tiaaa1 WIId1j~8 Rcfug~ Tho results of such studics1 wh~ con- .~epo~ ~
picted, ft~d ~ ~ oc (ho Sc~ttc~~ sh~1l ~e subit~iLted Co~r::
to ~hc Con
Sr~ 8 ~Sccttt~ry may ~ such ~gu1~~cis ~ ~y i}e
ntc~s~ary to ~ oilt th~ ptovision~ of tht~ A~
Approvcd S~pternber ~ 1964
~ ;{~S.C?Yt
*:40Us~ ~ ~ 1O?Z (Co~~i on !fltf~~~ .* `£.~u1&r Arr~i~~) ~M
*`4~ 18zo (Co~ of C~(\£.~--~).
S£~Tt ~7CRV ~ ~1 (~, o~ I~t~~cr ~ ~ Arr~1r~)
COt4~~S IO~L ~
y~l* I~ (1962)t Ju~ ~ co~td~td and ~ ~enate
~ 110 (1964)t ~ 20, ccniider~d i~d ~13~d ((aUl~9&m~~ed.
Au~ 18, ~ ~ a o~fctt~e repo~
Au~ 19, ~ ~r~.td o ~ot~e~nae tpGrt.
I
PAGE 48 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 48
I APPENDIX 6 Customs and Culture Ran9hing and Dairy
2 Please refer to the narrative included later in this section entitled Ranching Traditions ofAlta Califbmia for
background on the historic Spanish and Mexican colonial traditions ofranching in California It
4 establishes (1) ranches or ranchos; (2) open range grazing; (3) branding; (4) roundups; (5) rodeos; and (6)
S vaqueros (cowboys) as flindamental to Califomias historic economic base, cultural roots and traditional
6 lifeways.
7
8 SISKIYOU COUNTY- HISTORICAL NOTES:
9 Sectional variations in physical charactenstics naturally divide Siskiyou County into five identifiable areas
10 where ranching and dairying have played a significant historical role: Yreka-Shasta Valley; the area west
I I of 1-5 , (including Scott Valley, Klamath and Salmon Rivers); Butte Valley; the Tule Lake or Upper
12 Klamath Basin; and the Mt. Shasta area. The following spot sketches are meant only as an illustrative
13 sample ofthe histo~ ofranching and dairying in Siskiyou County:
14
is GENERAL: tn 1837, the first cattle passed through Siskiyou County when Ewing Young drove more than
16 700 head ofcattle up Siskiyou Trail to Oregon. After the discovery ofgold, ranching was rapidly
17 established tliroughout the county, so that by 1878, there was already an inventory of4,600 horses, 540
I 8 mules, 46,9 1 5 homed cattle, 33,500 sheep and I ,900 hogs.34 \Vool and butter were among the county's
19 principal exports in 1877.
20
21 OfNOTE: A severe winter in 1889-90 killed native wildlife, such as mountain sheep, and large numbers of
22 livestock. In Butte Valley, Charlie Boyes lost 1,500 horses from starvation. \Villard Stone lost 28 horses
23 on his Sacramento range with snow at 18 feet high. Presley Dorris in Butte Valley and Modoc County,
24 estimated his loss at 5,000 cattle. I.J. Straw, his foreman, estimated the loss nearer to 7,000 head. The
25 Fairchilds at the J.F. Ranch lost hundreds of horses.
26
27 YREKA-SUASTA VALLEY:
28 Robert Martin has been credited as the first rancher in Shasta Valley, establishing the Table Rock Ranch in
29 1849.
30
3 1 Many ranch operations diversified from beefeattle into dairying. For instance, the 3,500 acre Brady Ranch
32 near Ga:::elle, purchased by Josiah Edson in 1 852, diversified into dairying and cheesemaking around I 877.
33 By 1906, the Edson Foulke Co. Ranch totalled 10,000 acres was mostly a beefcattle operation. Once
34 again, in 1925, part of it was converted to a dairy operation with approximately 1,200 milk cows.
35
36 In I 855, Wiley 3. Fox and J. Montgomery Peters claimed adjoining homesteads to raise stock north of
37 Parks Creek. Fox then became sole owner and in 1861, sold it to I{~ Stewart who added dairy cattle to the
38 operation. On Februaxy 14, 1868, the Yreka Joumal announced the forthcoming arrival of 140 Portuguese
39 immigrants, who planned to work the Hawkinsville mines and establish cattle ranches or dairjes. [11 1886,
40 Bill On's Grenada and Butte Creek Ranches were bought from Bill Orr by five partners, most 9f whom
41 were Potuguese. The Butte Creek operation was primarily a seasonal dairy ofabout 100 heai Milk cows
42 would be driven from Grenada to Butte Creek in May and back in October. Together with the Grenada
43 beefeattle Ranch, the operation totalled about 1,200 head.
44
45 3ames B. Rohrer operated a 1a~e Holstein dairy in Little Shasta between 191447 and the Qua&~s and
46 Machado families established a 100 head dairy in Big Springs, providing stock to establish herds
47 throughout Shasta Valley. Local creameries in need ofmilk paid for the cows, taking the payments out of
48 . farmers cream checks.
34
Febrwty 6, 1878 Xi~kaJ~i~ma[, pg. 3, coL 5.
PAGE 49 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
l According to Frank Herzog, the city ofYreka in 1857 consisted of640 acres (1 mile square) encircled by
2 cattle ranches and dairies. Each man had his ~ (corporate limits) marked out in native sandstone:
4 The Steele Ranch was located at southeast city limits and extended beyond wl~ere the evergreen Cemetery
5 15 now. From the cemetery, John Garvey had 640 acres devoted to cattle. North ofCernetery Lane `vas the
6 southwest corporate owned by Charles Payot and Amidy Tisso of 100 acres. From the north line of their
7 property to North Street was the Sani Pellet place. Continuing north Si~ ~et~el had the north~~~est
S corporate limits as his property. going east from there was the McNaulty Cattle Ranch From there toward
9 Yreka Creek through the Catholic Cemetery was the ranch owned by Charles Herzog Then the Steele
10 f~ncli agaIn. In 1916, Nick ~Veber had a dairy on the Steele property. East from Steeles was the lini
I I ~Vheeler Ranch. Beyond and across Oberlin Road from Steele's was the George Nurse home and property.
12 Mrs. Frank LeMay had 320 acres in the Greenhorn area that was used for cattle and dairy. At the west end
I 3 of Miner Street (across from Yreka City Park) a Mrs. Crowley had seven acres extending beyond the north
14 end ofminer from Gold street to a creek on the west. She had 123 head of cattle.
15
16 In 1875, Nathaniel Dennis bought a farin of 160 acres in Big Springs and homesteaded another 160 acres.
1 7 The Dennis brothers operated the Shasta Creamery on the place, with a ten foot water wheel that operated
l 8 the butter chum and cream separator. (Later, they sent their nulk to the Edgewood Creamery operated by
19 l~.E. Norris.) Martins Dairy was originally owned by lames B. Martin who operated the dairy in the
20 summer. An undershot wheel was constructed in front ofa log dairy house straddling the Little Shasta
2 1 River. There was a cold spring where butter and cheese was stored before hauling it to the railroad and
22 town. By I 9 1 7, a cheese factory was operating in Grenada.
23
24 Some ranchers diversified into sheep. In 1 859 George Fiock purchased a place on the Shasta River from
25 L.R. Nichols and raised both sheep and cattle. His father, John, was cattle ranching between Lost River
26 and Lower Klamatli Lake when there was trouble with the Modocs and he moved his cattle to his sonts in
27 1863.
28 Brice M. Martin acquired Martin's Dairy around 1 900 and used it as a headquarters for grazing sheep,
29 (tended by Basque shepherds,) and cattle during the summer months. There were two bands ofabout 1,500
30 sheep and a cattle herd ofabout200 head. James B. Rohrer had a large sheep operation until 1920.
31
32 Beefcattle was always a mainstay. Patrick and Bridget Kieman settled south ofGazelle in 1854.
33 Although the ranch eventually comprised some 16,000 acres, the original 80 acres was not patented until
34 1884. ~ey raised beefcattle and had a butchering business with several retail outlets. Also in 1854, a
35 group ofyoung newl~ved couples arnved by wagon train to establish ranches, including Nelson H. Eddy,
36 Sidney Terwilliger, Solomon Gage and Norman Stone. Accompanying them were Andrew Soule, George
37 Root, John Gage, McKenn Armsby, Timothy Cook and Jasper Palmer to drive their livestock.
38
39 In I 876, Benjamin Franklin Dunlap established a ranch at the present site of Dwinnell Dam. It was
40 abandoned in 1898 as it was determined to be tailroad land and they were unable to patent their homestead.
4 1 In 1 884, Louis Hessig bred Devonshire and Hereford cattle at the Double Hart Ranch on the KIamath River
42 east ofCopco for the Pokegama Lumber camp and the railroad. Many ofthe cows weighed as much as
43 2 l 00~22OO lbs. There were roundups to clear the range of as many as 300 wild horses at a time.
44
4S Many ranchers deve1o~ "customary range" on the public domain. In I 857, Charles Heniy Stone
46 purchased half interest in a Durham cattle ranch north of Weed with Dave SoyerlSolyer. Stone used
47 summer range at Medicine Lake, driving his cattle east of Weed and into Squaw Valley. In I 884, Stone
48 switched to a range at the middle and south fork ofthe Sacramento River. It was necessary to realign and
49 brush the caWe trail. As the herd grew, range was expanded into Mumbo Basin, Crow Creek, the Seven
so Lakes basin ofthe Middle Fork ofBig Castle Creek and the east fork ofthe Tnnity River known as Sunny
S I Slopes. Two cabins were built with coimls for working saddle horses on the Sacramento River and at
52 Mumbo Basin~. (See Attachment Constitution ofthe Siskiyou County Stock Protective Association for
53 notations on `~customai~~ range" in part ofeastern Siskiyou County.)
54
55 Prior to the arrival ofthe railroad in 1887, cattle were the only meat animals exported out ofthe county.
56 Sometimes, ranchers had to drive their herd as far south as Sacramento to find a market Ranches such ~s
PAGE 50 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 50
I John and George Millers (\VII1 Has) ranch (1854) in Little Shasta nearSheep Rock, were used as a
)
stopping place" for eastern Oregon drovers, stopping to brand and feed cattle before passing on to market.
~
4 `,`,`ith rail transport, law dictated that afier 36 hours cattle had to be unloaded, fed watered, rested and
5 allowed to move for eight hours. Both the Montague and Gazelle stops had ample corral space and
6 twenty-five percent ofall grain raised in the county was used for transit cattle. Cattle nonnally moved
7 northward by rain in the spring and southward in the fall. In 1896, 51 box car loads ofcattle departed
8 Gazelle between Jan 22-26. 500 carloads departed in the fall and winter shipments, with several thousand
9 head more to go.
10
1 1 SCOTT VALLEY/SALMON AND KLAMATH RIVERS:
I 2 According to some records, E~vin and Sarah Elmore settled as early as I 845 on 320 acres of land near the
I 3 (later) Asa White and P.A. Heartstand holdings. Elmore sold part ofthe land to James Biembaum (Enos
I 4 Young ranch in 1 893,) and the balance to Edmund and Elizabeth Bagby who sold it to Frank J. Horn Sr.
I 5 As early as 1 850, Pool and Wicks had established a land claim in Scott Valley with a corral to graze cattle
l 6 for meat for the miners at Scott Bar.
17
I 8 In I 85 1 , various land claims were established in Scott Valley for grazing of beef for the Yreka and Scott
I 9 Bar market. In I 85 1 , Mathias B. Callahan Ranch was located near the junction of the east and south forks
20 of the Scott River on land purchased from a Frenchman. In I 852, James Hayden joined his brother
2 1 Charles, who had already established a ranch in Noyes Valley near Callahan. They werejoined by brother
22 Richard in 1 864 and Frank in 1 865. In 1 853, James Bryan, a soldier at Fort Jones, established a 600 acre
23 ranch north of Etna. In I 854, Lieutenant George Crook and Brevet 2nd Lieutenant John Hood also
24 engaged in ranching.
2S
minina commu
26 The Jim and Frank Abrams trading post built in I 852 at the ~ nity ofSisselville (Cecilville)
27 included a slaughter house and butcher shop. A small herd ofcattle was kept for meat and dairy products.
28 According to the writings ofJohn Daggett, in 1854, Salmon River miners could get beefat reasonable
29 prices from Scott Valley, although it had to be corned in the fall for winter use. In 1873, George Sightrnan
30 ranged his cattle wild along Shadow Creek and Grasshopper Point. He sold beefon the hoof. The buyer
3 1 had to find and shoot an animal and pay 4 cents per pound for the dressed meat. Petersburg was settled in
32 the l8SOs and 60s. Originally cattle and hogs were brought to Petersburg from Shasta Valley. Later, L.P.
33 Jordan had ranches at Rush Creek and Garden Gulch, with cattle ranging in the Salmon Mountains.
34
35 Nathan L. Morgan settled a ranch on Horse Creek bet'veen I 850-60. In 1 885, Robert and James Rainey
36 homesteaded cattle ranches of 160 acres each in Seiad Valley and purchased the Horse Creek Ranch in
37 1893.
38
39 Many early cattlemen in the area established "customary range" on the public domain. In 1854, Alexander
40 Parker lived and raised his cattle on the H.C. Coty Ranch. His white faced Herefords did not do well on
4 1 the swatnpy valley land and in 1856, he bought a coiml and cabin from Mr. Plowman. By 1 858, the ranch
42 supported 3,000 head ofcattle. The cattle were ranged for summer pasture in Deadf~1l lake, Bear Creek in
43 Little Trinity and the North Fork ofthe Sacramento. In the early days, the range was free. Later, it had to
44 be leased from Southern Pacific or the Forest Service. Riders remained with the cattle during summer and
45 began to bring the cattle home from the range on October 15. Depending upon snows, the cattle were
46 driven down Trinity River and over Scott Mountain, down the north fork ofthe Sacramento to Sisson; then
47 to the Scott Ranch (Hammonds) near Bdgewood and over Gazelle Mountain Several Scott Valley
48 stockinen would use the Parker Ranch as a stop~over when driving cattle to the railroad at Gazelle.
49
50 *~Around 1 860, Charles Hatnmond settled on a ranch along the Scott River. In partnership with David Horn,
5 1 the circle barbrand ran a large herd ofeattle in the Siskiyou Mountains on the Oregon~California border.
52 Son, C.S. (Charles Stuart) Hammond, was born on the ranch in 1866 and was one ofthe first cattlemen to
53 run cattle in the Marble Mountain Wilderness. C.S had five sons, all who established separate Angus cattle
54 ranches.
55
PAGE 51 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 51
I Around 19 1 5, Nerva Hayden and Gladys Jenner each homesteaded at the mouth of Noyes Valley near
2 Callahan. They later married, and in partnership with Frank Jenner, built the ranch into an operation of
3 several thousand acres. Hayden worked cattle from Castle Craggs to the Marble Mountains.
4
S Some ranchers went into sheep. For instance, in I 877, James B. Hayden had a large band ofsheep near
6 Callahan. Some diversified into dairying. In 1857. A.H. Denny fenced in a gulch above the Sullivan
7 Ranch on Wildcat Creek, bought a few milk cows and sold the milk to miners during winter. Durincr
8 summer, the cows were driven to Denny Farm on Coffee Creek and milk was sold there. In l 894, a
9 creamery was built at Hays Comer, (Greenview.) In I 896, there were two creameries in Scott Valley.
10
II BUTTEVALL~V:
1 2 indian raids on cattle delayed the settlement of Butte Valley. In 1 858, Hyde and Rohrer grazed cattle in
I 3 Butte Valley at Butte Creek, but did not stay the winter. [n l 859 and 1 p60, J. Hargrove and J. Hampton
I 4 brought cattle from Oregon to graze in Butte Valley, but did not winter there. In 1 86 1 , J.A. Fairchild,
15 G.W. Hard and 1.5. Mathews grazed 1,200 cattle and 300 horses in Butte Valley. The herd was in the
16 charge of8-l0 men. Rohrer also had stock in Butte Valley in the area were Charles Boyes later lived.
17
18 In 1862, Ball Brothers and Presley A Dorris settled with stock in Butte Valley. The Ball Brothers and John
19 Bull familiesjoined to range cattle for many thousands ofacres. In 1862 John A. Fairchild made a treaty
20 with the Modocs whereby, in exchange for about $300 ofcattle and horses, he received title to Butte Creek
2 1 and nearby lands, with the privilege of ranging cattle further to the east. In 1 864, three Van Brimmer
22 brothers homesteaded a ranch on Willow Creek, located along the Yreka branch ofthe Applegate Trail.
23 About I 870, the brothers built a wood fort over Willow Creek in case of Indian attack. The ranch was sold
24 to William Davis and John Bull in 1883.
25
26 In 1 865, J.A. Fairchild made another treaty with the Modocs extending his cattle range further eastward. In
27 1 865, Fairchild and Si Doten took up the old "6" ranch (later Hank Meiss Ranch.) In 1873, The pa~~nership
28 broke up and Doten settled on the "Meiss Ranch", while Fairchild took 17,000 acres as the J.F. Ranch on
29 Cottonwood Creek.
30
3 1 An I 866 treaty gave J.A. Fairchild and Pres Dorris title to Hot Creek, Cottonwood Creek and the Lost
32 River country, except for a six mile square area at the mouth of Lost River, reserved by Captain Jack.
33 Dorris established the "D" ranch in Siskiyou County, and another ranch along the Pit River. The "Miller
34 Tract"35 was located on the east side of Butte Valley. It was considered locally as open range and used
35 exclusively for cattle.
36
37 In 1880, Andrew Y. Truax was said to have~"pre-empted" the land at the foot ofBall Mountain,
38 homesteading at a site five miles west ofMacdoel. About that time, William Davis kept a 2,000 acre
39 "stopping place" at the former Van Brimmer ranch for drovers from southern Oregon to Montague and 4~
40 freight teams going north. It later becatne the~E.M. Hammond Herefbrd ranch Around 1890, "Forest
4 1 Meadows" was purchased from Edgar Ball by the three Prather brothers. Hundreds ofwild horses were
42 broken for the army. There were about 30 cowboys in the summer and the ranch also served as a "stopping
43 place" for drovers.
44
45 A cattle buyer named Moore and Heilbron, a wholesale Scrainento butcher, bought the Doten Ranch, then
46 Louis Meiss bought an interest from the Moore estate. The ranch leased 3S,OOO acres from Southern
47 Pacific in I 886. The operation fattened up cattle raised elsewhere, then shipped south for butchering.
3~ Hemy Miller laid the foundations for the meat packing industry in South San Francisco. He plowed his
profits back into buying extensive ranches and land holdings in California, Nevada and Oregon. His
business becaine the farnily firm of Miller and Liix. A large tract of land in Butte Valley was commonly
known as the "Miller Tract," thought to be owned by Miller and Ijix and later sold to the Pacific
Improvement Co. Soudiem Pacific.
PAGE 52 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 52
I Around 1896, the J.F. and the D' Ranches ran about 10,000 head ofcatzle combined and ) 000 horses
2 and mules. At the time, A[fred Ab' Evans was a flilitime working buckaroo or `vaquero He stated
that horses were broken in the spring; fbllowed by a horse rodeo or gathering ofmares and colts; then a
4 cattle rodeo for calves; haying; and beef roundup in the fall. According to Ed Cross, in I 895 the D ranch
S ran 8-9.000 head ofcatile and had about 27 buckaroos.
6
7 tn 1889-90, almost all the level land in Butte Valley was fenced for Miller and Lux (or Southern Pacific)
S by Joe Eaton and Merrill Evans. The company leased the land to the Edson brothers and the Meiss Ranch.
9 Dorris pulled down the fences and continued to graze there. ~e was also said to have fenced and gated
10 unsurveyed land at Sheepy Creek in the 1890s or the to keep settlers out. Faircl~ild was said to have
I l harassed ~ncsters at ~Fairchild Field~ or Oklahoma Valley in order to prevent tl~em from settling there.
12
13 The Grass Lake area had several dairies. In 1859, Eli Barnum settled in Shasta Valley, eventually locating
14 at Little Shasta. In I 874, he bought 240 acres at Grass Lake for sun~mer pasture from Iohn Rolirer. The
I 5 Bamum~s ran a dairy' at the Grass Lake place where there were ice cold springs and ice caves to store
I 6 butter. In 1 876, they sold the Grass Lake Dairy to at John Walbridge. In I 896 there was Pyl&s Grass
I? Valley' Creamery'. In Butte Valley,
18 Julius V. Russell homesteading on Butte Creek where he ran a dairy' and creamery sometime afier I 876.
19
20
21 TULE LAKEJUPPER KLAMT[{ BAS[N:
22 [n 1861, there were attacks at Goose Lake and Bloody Point on waoon (r ains by Modocs and other tribes.
23 Herds ofeattle and horses became the choice target. In 1 872, Jesse D. Carr and Jesse Applegate were in
24 partnership runnino catt le between Clear Lake (Modoc County) and Tule Lake. Carr purchased land along
2S the shores ofTule Lake from the estates of Henry Miller and William Brotherton. By I 878, he had 500
26 breed horses, 500 DurhamlAngusi Hereford cross cattle, and 6,000 sheep. Extreme weather is reported to
27 have taken the 6,000 sheep in 1878 and 1,500-2,000 cattle in 1890. By the 1900s, the Carr Land and
28 Livestock Co. owned a total of4O,000 acres in the Clear Lake and Tule Lake areas. His daughter formed
29 the Tule Lake Land and Livestock Co., selling l~3 to \Villiam Dalton, who later bought-out the rest.
30 Dalton's daughter married Robert A. Byrne.
31
32 In 1890, Charles and Elva Laird purchased the "Old Doc Skeen Place" on Lower Klamath Lake. They
33 raised cattle and horses and ran a "stopping place" for drovers and freighters. In I 905, the "Klamath"
34 steamboat ran to a point near the Laird's house.
35
36 In 191 1, a large dairy cow operation visited southern Oregon. Although they did not choose the site, the
37 local Czech community capitalized on the idea, establishing their own cheese and produce facility in I 921.
38
39 MOUNT SHASTA AREA:
40 The Mount Shasta/McCloud Area was used primarily for range. Sam Jackson had extensive herds of cattle
4 I and a dairy in Squaw Valley in I 873. 5.5. "Doc" Williams is also said to have summered his stock on
42 range in Squaw Valley.
43
44 Charles Beaudroit purchased a ranch in Little Shasta in I 874. The cattle were ranged in the summer on
45 Trout Creek, east of McCloud. Timber growth eventually took the best pasture and the range was turned
46 over to sheep men. In 1 906, Henry Fiock took over his father, George's, place on the Shasta River. He
47 also obtained a grazing right around McCloud and Trout Creek for running sheep and cattle. It would take
48 a week to move tile sheep and then the cattle to the rangeland. Herders were kept with the stock until fall
49 .. . when the trek home would stait When the price of livestock plummeted. operations were reduced and
50 centered aroun:~.d home.
5l
PAGE 53 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I HISTORICAL STATISTICS:
2 (See ATTACHMENTS A, B and C. It shouid be noted that in recent times, livestock production in
3 Siskiyou County has included the addition ofliamas, fallow deer, buffalo and ostriches. Also ofnote is the
4 development ofspecialty breeds ofeattle, sheep and horses, including Percheron and Belgian draft horses,
5 Arabian, \Varm Bloods and Quarter Horses~)
6 GRA~[NG ON LANDS NOW MANAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT:
7 About 63 % ofthe land within Siskiyou County is managed by citner the federal or state government. An
8 estimated 30% ofSiskiyou County's total herd is dependent upon seasonal land grazing on the Shasta
9 Trinity National Forest (ST~~F), Klamath National Forest (KNF) and lands managed by the Bureau of Land
10 Management (BLM).
11
12 Twenty nine "permitees' utilize 26 grazing allotments on the STh~F, however, only a small portion of these
13 lands are within Siskiyou County. ~e STNF allotments provide forage for 2,350 head ofcattle, 2,120
14 sheep and 45 horses. Some ofthe allotments are used by residents ofShasta County. Five allotments
Is currently are not being utilized, in part, due to damage from the Fountain Fire. A portion of allotments
16 utilized by four pennitees for 19S additional cattle lie within both the STNF and the KNF, but are
1 7 administered by the KNF.
18
19 Within the KNF proper36 , there are ten term grazing allotments on the Oak Knoll Ranger District that
20 amount to about 590 head ofcattle, or 3,287 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). There is one grazing allotment
21 on the Ukonom Ranger District, amounting to about 50 head ofcattle, or 198 AUMs. There are 16 terrn
22 grazing allotments on the Goosenest Ranger Distnct1 amounting to about 2,783 head of cattle, or 1 4, l 54
23 AUMs. There are 25 term grazing allotments on the Scott and Salmon River Ranger Districts, amounting
24 to about [746 head ofeattle, or 7,168 AUMs. In addition, there are three temporary permits on the Oak
25 Knoll totalling 172 head or436 AUMs and seven temporary on the Goosenest totalling 352 head or 1,169
26 AUMs.
27 In total, 70 permitees utilize 60 range allotments comprised ofa combination ofboth Klamath National
28 Forest and `1waived" private lands within the forest that account for about 25% of the total seasonal grazing
29 in Siskiyou County.
30
36 (Chapter 3, pg. 19 of the KNF ~nd and Resource Management Plan.)
PAGE 54 Show Image
Slskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996
page $4
I A
2 CATTLE INVENTORIESI PRODUCTION*
3
4 HEIFERS
S Year BULLS COWS CALVES STEERS TOTAL
6
7 1957 1,225 9,615 10,060 2O~9OO 41~8OO
8 1959 950 10,250 8~2OO 18,500 37~9OO
9 1960 1~125 ~,OOO 12~7OO 19,200 39,025
10 19~1 1,150 6,700 13,100 20,100 41,050
II 19~2 1,280 8,160 6,460 30,510 46,410
12 1965 1,209 8,300 5,620 45,500 66,629
13 1966 1,446 6,480 3,490 42,600 54,016
14 1967 1,434 7,600 4,000 43,500 56,534
is 1968 1~493 9,100 4,310 58,200 73,103
16 1970 1,779 8,600 2,250 42,500 55,129
17 1971 1,800 8,400 3,700 47,700 61,600
18 1972 1,484 11,062 3,987 41,725 58,258
19 1973 1,630 9,852 3,780 38,280 53,542
20 1974 1,717 9,391 4,755 29,191 45,056
21 1975 1,426 8,957 3,331 30,880 44,594
22 1976 1,100 6,900 3,000 28,195 39,195
23 1977 1,650 18,300 9,700 34,700 64,350
24 1978 1,258 11,997 8,002 41,380 62,637
25 1979 1,779 11,517 8,162 42,698 64,156
26 1980 2,126 11,717 8,000 46,900 68,737
27 1981 2,220 11,981 4,000 49,091 63,692
28 1983 1,750 12,350 3,300 65,490 82,890
29 1984 1,880 11,590 2,900 68,183 84,553
30 1985 2,225 10,244 4,512 44,217 61,198
31 1986 3,377 21,568 2,891 58,022 85,858
32 1987 2,754 19,052 4,551 63,577 89,934
33 1988 2,722 18,840 4,510 60,999 87,071
34 1989 2,523 9,698 4,401 49,865 66,487
3S 1990 3,038 18,718 11,249 62,473 95,478
36 1991 2,816 19,045 5,863 67,925 95,649
37 1992 1,990 10,638 17,747 38,666 69,041
38 1993 1,751 14,019 12,639 41,488 69,897
39 1994 1,935 17,586 17,371 44,525 81,417
40
41 * Source Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report, data as of
42 year-end
43
PAGE 55 Show Image
Sisklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 55
I ~TT~CHME~T B
2
3 DIVISION OF LAND OWNERSHIP I~ SISKIYOU COUNTY
4
5 The 1993 Siskiyou County Annual Crop Report gives the following division
6 of land allocation and statistics in Siskiyou County Distributed as
* 7 follows:
8
9 Area of county (square miles) 6~313 Acres
10 in county 4,038,843 Land in
II farms (acres) 1,153,246 Cropland
12 acres 210,000 Irrigated
13 acres 138, 000
14 Rangeland (woodland and forest acres) 2,525,216
15 Urban areas (acres) 12, 381
16 County road miles 1,398
17 State Highway miles 325
18 Population (January 1, 1992) 44, 791
19 *
20 Chapter 1, pg. 4 of the Klamath~National Forest Draft EIS states that
21 the KNF consists of 1,680,000 acres of land, located primarily in
22 Siskiyou County. According to Chapter 2, Table 2-14 and 2-15, 276,000
23 acres of land (including water) are not forested. 1,404,000 acres are
24 considered forested land and after various considerations, 1,051,000
25 forested acres are currently considered capable of timber production.
` 26 66,200 acres are currently considered usable grazing acres.
27
28 A portion of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest lies within Siskiyou
29 County. Total acreage of that Forest considered suitable for grazing is
30 245,834 acres, however only 51,521 of this is considered primary
31 rangeland, and 16,730 acres as secondary rangeland. The remainder is
32 considered temporary. Only a small portion of this rangeland is located
~ within Siskiyou County.
34
35
36 KLAMATH
37 usable grazing acres 66,200 (Chapter 4-161 ~F proposed
38 Land & Resource Management Plan)
39
40 Number of cattle term 2,386 on term allotments + 2,783
41 Goosenest on term allotments 5,169
42
43 Number of cattle temp. 172 on temp. allotments + 352
44 Goosenest on temp. 524
45
46 AUMs (cattle) term 10,653 term AUMs + 14,154 Goosenest
47 AUMs 24,807
48
49 AUMs (cattle) temp. 436 temp AUMs + 1,169 Goosenest
so AUMs 1,605
PAGE 56 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I ATTACHIIENT C
2
3 COMPARISON FEDEI~AL LANDS ALLOCATED TO GRAZING
4
5 The following information was taken from the 1957 Siskiyou County Annual
6 Livestock and Crop Report:
7
8 Summary National Forest Grazing
9 Siskiyou
I
10
II Head of Head of
12 Total
13 National Forest Acres Cattle AUMs Sheep
14 AUMs * AUMs
[5
16 KLA~~TH
17 usable grazing acres*+ 470,000 5,030 17~G39 2~OOO
18 9~I16 19~4~2 1;
19 NFS admin private land 1,400
20
21 SHAsTA-TRINITY
22 usable grazing acres 311,800 997 3,635 5,145
23 20,760 7,787
24 NFS admin private land 62~2OO
25
26 NODOC
27 usable grazing acres 58,000 200 850 7,558
28 18,487 4,547
29 NFS admin private land 5,120
30 private not NFS admin 2,160
31
32 B~1 78,000 1,500 9,360 5,000
33 31,200 15,600
34 TOTALS 988,680 7,747 31,484 19,703
35 79,563 47,396
36
37
38 * S sheep equal 1 Animal Unit Month
39 ** Also ndte that this does not include 18,100 acres of the Butte Valley
40 National Grasslands
41
42
43
44
PAGE 57 Show Image
Slskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 57
I CONSTITUTION OF THE SISKIYOU COUNTY STOCk PROTECTIVE
2 ASSOCIATION
3 Brand Book ofSlsklyou County Stock Protective Association, 1898)
4
S
6 ARTICLE[
7 Section 1. The name ofthis Association shall be the Siskiyou County Stock Protective Association.
8
9 Section 2. The objects ofthe Association are to secure to members thereofmutual protection in their ranoe
10 stock interests, and to further, as far as practicable, the stock interest ofthis part of California...
ii
12 A~CLE111
13 Section 1. tt is the du~ ofea~ch memberofthe Association to notify his fellow members at once, in all
14 cases, ofstock wandering from their proper range, or needing any attention or care; and to heartily co-
15 operate with any like Association that may be found bordering the range.
16
17 Section 2. It is also the duty ofeach member to report to tbe president ofthe Association any cases of
18 unlawful altering ofbrands or marks, or any attempt ofanyone to take possession ofstock not belonging to
19 him.
20
2 1 rote: This Association only appears to cover ranchers in the eastern halfofSiskiyou County and does not
22 include the Scott Valley and Salmon River areas. Brands were listed by name, post office, customary
23 range, marks and if horses also branded and how. This list includes only names, P.O., range and if had
24 horses - (H).
25
26 Beaudroit Bros.: Little Shasta, range Little Shasta and Butte Creek.(ll)
27 John Bloomingcamp: Bogus; range - Bogus.(H)
28 Joe G. Borba: Little Shasta; range - head of Willow Creek.
29 William Bray: Yreka; range - Butte Creek.
30 Cassidy Bros: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta.
3 1 Rufus Cole: Coles; range - Cottonwood Distfict.(H)
32 Sam Clary: Hombrook; range - Klamath River and Siskiyou Mountain.
33 Geo. Cleveland: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley.
34 J.E. Cooley: Ager; range Siskiyou mountains nonh of Klatnadi River.
35 Geo. B. Combs: Little Shasta; range head of Willow Creek.(H)
36 John Daggett: Bogus; range Klamath River.(H)
37 H.L. Davis: Little Shasta; range Little Shasta.(H)
38 W.~ Davis: Brownell; range Butte Creek.Qi)
39 George Deter: Ruby; range Butte Creek Valley.
40 Elliott Earhart: Little Shasta; range Little Shas~(H)
41 Life Edson: Gazelle; range not listed.(H)
42 Fred Evans: Little Shasta; range Little Shasta and Elk Crcek.(1{)
43 J.C. Evans: Ruby; range Butte Creek Valley.(H)
44 MemIl Evans: Ruby; i~nge Butte Creek Valley.
45 Jerome Fay: Beswick; range Klamath River.
46 Henry Fiock: Yreka; i~nge Shasta River.
47 G.W. Ford: Ager; range head ofLittle Bogus.(H)
48 Manuel Frankliw. Bogus; range Bogus.
49 . Freshour Bros.:~Gottville; range Kiamadi River.(H)
so j.j. Garvey: Yreka; range Greenhorn.(H)
S I Glendenning~Bros.: Fort Jones; no range listed.(H)
52 Chas. Haight Little Shasta; range Little Shasta and Butte Creek.(f{)
53 William Hart: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta.
54 *A. Heilborn & Bro.: Balls Ranch (G.H Meiss, mana~r): range Butte Creek Vallev.(H)
PAGE 58 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 58
I \Villiam G. Herzog: Bogus- range Bogus.(H)
2 L Hessig: Beswick; range Kiamath River.(~)
3 pugh He~vo~h: Ruby; range Butte Creek Valley.
4 Henry f{ogerdone: Montague- ranae Willow Creek.~[4~
S David Horn: Hombrook; range Kiamath River between Jenny Creek and [4ombrook.
6 J.A. lulien: Yreka; range Shasta Valley.
7 George King: Montague; range Shasta Valley.(H)
8 Dick Kuck: Montague; range Willow Creek.(H)
9 C.J. Laird: Brownell; range Butte Creek Valley.(H)
10 John Lennox: Beswick; range - Klamath River. 4
1 1 Walter Lennox: Beswick; range - Kiamath River.
12 William Lennox: Beswick; range - Kiamath River.
I 3 Andrew McKee: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley.
14 John Maxwell: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley.(H)
is J. Miller & Ed Hart: Little Shasta; range - Shasta Valley and Butte Creek.(H)
16 G.H. Meiss: BaIls Ranch; range - Butte Creek Valley.
1 7 D. Mulloy: Bogus; range - head of Big Bogus.
I 8 John Neville: Bogus; range Bogus.
19 Edw. OConnor: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta and Butte Creek.(H)
20 Thos. Orr: Yreka; range - Shasta Valley and Butte Creek.(H)
2 1 Geo. Otto: Beswick; range - Kiamath River.
22 Chas. Payot: Yreka; range Butte Creek.(H)
23 Joseph Piper: humbug; range Hum bug.(H)
24 C.H. Pyle: Gazelle; range - Grass VaIley.(H)
25 John Rose: Mayten; (Hand written entry - no range.)
26 J.B. Rohrer: Little Shasta; range - Antelope.(H)
27 T.S. Ro've: Montague; range - Scott Tract land.(H)
28 G.J. Silva: Little Shasta; range - head of Willow Creek.
29 Joseph Silva: Bogus; range - Kiamath River. (Later Ernest Lemos)
30 R.C. Skeen: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley.(H)
3 l John Solus, Jr.: Hawkinsville; range - Hawkinsville.(H)
32 Andrew Soule: Little Shasta; range - Bogus.(H)
33 E. Soule: Little Shasta; range - head of Little Shasta and Butte Creek.(H)
34 Ernest Soule: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta.
35 H.A. Spannaus: Beswick; range - north side Klarnath River.(H)
36 Fred Strofelt: Bogus; range - Bogus.
37 E.S. Terwilliger: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta.(H)
38 F.S. Terwilliger: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta~(H)
39 Eugene Terwilliger: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta~(H)
40 Mrs. P.S. Terwilliger: Little Shasta; range - Little Shasta~(H)
4 1 Henry Truitt: Beswick; range - Klamath River.
42 William Turner: ~ Butte Creek Valley.(H)
43 - John Varnum: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley (H).
44 R-L Vamum: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley.(H)
45 Tom Wadsworth: Ruby; range - Butte Creek Valley. (H)
PAGE 59 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
page 59
February 1996
l RANCHING TRADITIONS OFALTA CALIFORNIA
2
3 Source: Robert Glass Cleland; From Wildemess to Empire, A Histo~ ofCalifomia, 1542-1900; Alfred A
4 Knopf, c1944, pgs. 132-137.
5
6 "Down to the time ofthe Gold Rush, the economic life ofCalifomia centered almost exclusively in the
7 cattle industry. The few hundred head ofstock brought from Mexico by the early colonists, multiplied into
8 thousands by the turn ofthe century. Within another twenty-five years, hundred ofsquare miles of grazing
9 lands were required to support the herds ofeven a single mission. After seculanzation...the province
10 became a succession ofgreat ranchos whose `black cattle and beasts ofburden' numbered into the tens of
1 1 thousands.
12
13 uLife on one ofthe great ranchos, followed, in the main, the ancient customs, laws, and practices brought
14 to Mexico by the early Spanish conquerors, there adapted to the conditions ofthe country, and thence
l 5 transferred to California. Stock was grass-fed the year round, and ran almost wild on the open ranges...
16
I 7 uCattlemen were required to have three registered brands - the flerro, or iron; the senal, or ear mark; and
I 8 the venta, or sale brand. At least once a year every ranchero held a general roundup, or rodeo, presided
I 9 over by one or more Jueces del Campo, or Judges of the Plain, for the purposes of segregating the cattle
20 belonging to different owners and ofbranding the calves..."
21
22 "...To keep the thousands of frightened, bewildered, and maddened creatures from stampeding, cowboys,
23 or vaqueros rode continually about the herd, seeking to hold it together. Whenever an animal broke frog
24 the mass, a rider immediately roped him; or, seizing him by the tail, with a peculiar twist requiring both
25 strength and dexterity, threw him heavily to the ground."
26
27 "Meanwhile, each owner and his vaqueros rode in and out among the cattle, separating such animals as he
28 found marked with his own brand from the main herd. The question ofownership was seldom a difficult
29 matter, because ofthe brands, and even the unbranded calves followed the cows to which they belonged.
30 As an owner's cattle were cut out from the general herd, they were driven a little distance away, to a place
3 1 previously chosen, and kept by themselves until the rodeo was ended. Here the rancher branded his calves
32 and determined the number he could profitable slaughter during the coming season.
34 William Heath Davis in Seventy-five Years in California; (1929), p.40. wrote:
35
36 "Money was little kno~'n and seldom used in California and almost all business transactions were cairied
37 on by barter. Hides, or `California bank notes,' as they were called along the coast, had a fluctuating value
38 of from one to three dollars...Long term credit was extended by the foreign merchant or his agent to the
39 r~icheros; and losses on bad debts, except perhaps in those cases where merchants or traders were dealing
40 with one another, were very rare.
41
42 Davis descn'bed the system (Ibid., p.83.) as follows: uThe merchants sold to the rancheros and other
43 Californians whatever goods they wanted, to any reasonable amount, and gave them credit from one killing
44 season to another I have never known ofa single instance in which note or other written obligation was
45 required ofthem. At the time ofpurchasing they were flirnished with bills ofthe goods, which were
46 charged in the aocount books, and in all my intercourse and experience in trade with them, extending over
47 many years, I never knew ofa case ofdishonesty on their part..."
48
49 Source Andrew~F. Rolle; California A History (Second Edition); Thomas Y Crowell Co; New York; C.
so l969.~gs.ll4-l2O)
51
52 Many ofthe holdings were at first stocked~with horses borrowed from the missions which the settlers
53 returned whenever the increase permitted. [n 1840, William Heath Davis, Jr. estimated a total of 1,045
54 holdings ofall sizcs. About 800 ofthese were stocked with an average ofsome 1,500 head per rancho;
PAGE 60 Show Image
Si&kiyou County Compfehensive Land & Resoufce Management Plan
Febfuary 1996
p:-:
I about 1,220,000 head ofcattle total. The term Califorr~ia bank note came to ~ used ~ :~-.
~ steer hide, which had a value ofapproximately Si.
4 Cowboys or vaqueros, (many Christianized Indians,) were required in large numbers bee-: L~.
5 absence of fences in the territory over which the cattle ranged. "Free~roamin~ stock bec~-.. -
6 fierce that it was unsafe to go among such herds on foot or unarmed any man who rode L-. .- - -
7 likely to defend himselfagainst savage bulls as against ferocious c'rizz lies, (her often -- ..~ -
8 mountains.~'
9 "The cattle continued to increase so that even bountiful California could not fu:~i~ish enoL~.-. ~
10 years ofdrought. It sometimes became necessary for ranch hands to cut out and kill the ~ ~~~---
1 1 ~e horses too multiplied at such a rate that they offen ran wild, so that similar measures V~? --~-~
1 2 control them; some met their death by being driven over precipes into the sea a:~d into nv~ *o c;-~.
13
14 At the cattle slaughterings, the hides and tallow were taken and a relatively sm~i! arnoun~ ~; ::;--- -
I S strips for drying. Most of the carcasses were left to be disposed of by Indians, wild anima!~. ~. ..~
PAGE 61 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 61
I HI&TORY OF THE `~PUBLIC LANDS~' GRAZING SYSTEM
2 (An Industry Perspective compiled by M. Am~strong, Siskiyou County Fami Bureu)
4 \Vith the 1848 signing ofthe Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo bet'veen the United States and the Republic of
5 Mexico, the U.S. claimed the lands within the County ofSiskiyou as Territory ofthe United States. In
6 implementing the provisions established under the U.S.- Mexico Treaty, U.S. land patents would first be
7 awarded in validation ofclainis ofthose who could prove ownership under prior Mexican land grants. I 2
8 The California Land/Boundary Commission established under the Federal Land Act adjudicated these
9 claims. ~o claims `vere made for lands located within Siskiyou Count'.)
10
I 1 The 1823 Supreme Court case ofJohnson v. Mcintosh had also established that continued Indian `bright of
I 2 occupancyee and use of land could only be extinguished by the federal government through conquest,
13 purchase or appropriation3
14
15 In addition1 federal policy oftl~e time was not to offer for private sale lands cliieflv valuable for mineral
I 6 development.4 5
1 7 Lands remained within the public domain" until surveyed and offered for disposal as "public land' under
I 8 land patent through the agency of the General Land Office (later Bureau of Land Management).
19
20 The patenting process is essentially ajudgernent ofthe Land Office tribunal serving as documentar~
2 1 evidence that: (I) legitimate national obligations (compliance with international treaties and
22 extinguishment of Indian occupancy) have been discharged so that national interest in tlie property can be
23 quitclaimed,6 (2) that all disputes concerning possessory rights have been adjudicated in court7 ; and (3)
24 that statutory requirements of `1proving up and paying claim fee5 have been met.8 Once requirements are
25 met by the claimant, issuance ofa patent is not discretionary9 , and once a land patent is issued, it stands as
26 the highest evidence of title. I 0 1 1
27
28 As populations poured into western reolons in advance of land sales, from one half to t'vo thirds of settlers
29 u5q~~~e~,Il unauthorized on public domain not officially opened as public lands for settlement. As the
30 frontier steadily advanced, there was pressure to reduce the unit size and cost ofpublic lands. Various
3 1 factions devised land disposal approaches to promote their own interests.
32
33 Some favored udistflbutionu pricing the public lands at higher levels with returns from sales to be
34 distributed among the States in proportion to their population. Some proposed "graduation and donation"
35 implementing a gradual reduction ofthe price of unsold lands at S 1 .25/acre, then S l , $.75, and S.50, with
36 remaining unsold lands being given away to settlers. Some proposed "preemption" allowing squatters
37 who settled on the public domain first priority in purchasing the land when it was offered for disposal, or
38 allowing them to "relate back" to their original date ofentry in "proving up" under homestead laws. 12
39 Some favored "cession" the turning over ofunsoId lands to the State as a source of income.
40
41 Under implementation ofpre~mption laws after 1841, speculators hi~ccl armies ofsquatters to prc~mpt
42 land, while loan sharks extorted heavy interest to purchase ptt~empted farms from the speculators.
43 "Homestead" was perceived as the answer; distributing land to actual settlers in small lots to discourage
44 development ofplantation systems. The first Homestead Bill was introduced in 1846 by Felix Grundy
45 McConnell ofAlabamL Others followed, largely introduced by Andrew Johnson. One of Johnson's
46 Homestead bilk passed the House in 1 852, but was never considered by the Senate.
47
48 Final passage ofthe Homestead Act in 1862 permitted any adult ciUzen or permanent immigrant intending
49 . citizenship to claim 160 acres ofpublic land for a $10 filing fee. Patenting ofthe land was conditional
so upon 5-10 years living on the land, building a house and cultivating the land; or purchasing outright at the
S I going price ($1 .25-$2.S0 an acre.) The Act did not provide for b of ~ larger than 160 acres and
52 was not reauthorized in 1 890. Only about one tenth ofnew farms in the west were actually obtained by
53 honiestea&13 14
54
PAGE 62 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 62
As discussed in Cattle in the Cold Desert, by James A Young and B. Abbott Sparks, published by Utah
2 State University Press in 1985, the limitation on homesteads of 160 acres was inadequate for a \Vestern
~ ranching operation ofthe day:
4
S `For example, a hypothetical ranch providing 1,250 pounds per acre ofannual herbage shows why 160
6 acres is inadequate. This herbage is produced from April through August with 80 percent usable by
7 ora~ina animals Each cow needs t'velve acres per year ( 1 250 lb. herbage production X 8 forage
S utilization 1 Animal Unit Month or "AUM" per acre x 12 months 12 acres.) This gives the stocking
9 capacity ofthirteen cows per homestead, but a ranch could not runjust thirteen cows. The herd must have
10 a bull, and two replacement heifers; and, steers are not marketable until three years ofage. With a 100
I I percent calfcrop, the herd would consist of4 cows (4 AUMs), l bull (1.5 AUMs), 2 replacement heifers (2
I 2 AUMs), and 2 three-year~old steers (2 AUMs), for a total of I 3 animals. The two marketable steers have a
1 3 value ofS2O.00 each affer three years. So for the first three years ofthe five-year (homestead)
14 requirement, there would be a return of£13.33 per year. This hypothetical homestead collapses, because
1 5 the sagebrush/grasslands communities were not available for yearlong grazing. The I 60-acre homestead
16 was an economic and biological impossibility."
17
Is
19 It was not until 1877 that the Desert Land Acts (Stat 377 43 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) allowed settlers ofarid
20 western lands, such as California, to claim 640 acres of land. In other areas, the Enlarged Homestead Act
2 1 of 1 909 doubled the size of homesteads to 320 acres and in l 9 1 6, the Stockraising Homestead Act,
22 (Statutes at Large, vol. 39, p.864,) increased the size of homesteads in other areas to 640 acres.
23
24 California, like almost all other States, accepted the common law of England, so far as not inconsistent
25 with the Constitution or the laws of the State. I 5 Until the various enclosure acts in England privatized
26 pasturage, the "common law ofgrazing" had applied. This recognized that every subject had common
27 grazing rights (pasturage and pannage) upon the "waste" lands ofthe manor, including woodlands,
28 meadows and all lands not under cultivation. There were ~vo kinds ofgrazing rights: appendant and
29 appurtenant. Appendant rights pertained only to owners ofarable land, permitting the owner to graze
30 "commonable beasts upon the lord's waste and upon the lands ofother persons within the same manor."
3 1 (Commonable beasts were those that manure the ground - horses, oxen and cattle.) Appurtenant rights
32 were general rights pertnitting owners ofhogs, goats and other noncommonable beasts to graze stock on
)~ the manor's lands.16 17 The common law ofgraainc' was r ecognized as applicable to the public domain
34 in the United States as late as the 1890 Supreme Court decision ofBuford V. Houtz, 133 U.S. 618.18
35
36 Free access to open-range was reinforced when the California legislature reaffirmed ranching customs and
37 usages or "laws Concerning Rodeos and Defining Duties ofJudges ofthe Plains," (Calif. Stats., April 29,
38 1 85 1, pg. 149.) The so~called "no fence or trespass law," required farmers and small private landowners to
39 fence out cattle. (This law is still in effect in many areas ofSiskiyou County.)
40
4 1 In addition, State common law provided that an individual could establish a right of possession under color
42 oftitle gootl against rival individual clumants through first discovery, location or occupancy and continued
43 use. 19 The right ofpossession was given recognition by the State Courts as a properly righ~2O
44 Possessory rights operated as State law in regard to individual use rights in the land and rcsotirces of the
45 public domain. Under English common law, open and notorious possession and use could crete
46 "prescriptive" property rights adverse to the ownership claims ofanother individual, but were incffcctual
47 against superior ownership asserted by the sovereign or king.2 1
48
49 Throughout U.S. history of frontier settlement, the question as to whether the federal govc~ment, in the
50 manner ofthe English monarchs, is entitled to immunity from prescription as sovereign has remained a
Sl gray area ofth~e law~2 23 24 The priority ofindividual possession and use as a basis for the disposal of
52 public land and resources has been recognieed in many Acts ofCongress, such as preemption, homestead
53 and mining/water acts.
54
55 According to Elwood Mead in [trigation Institutions, pp.28-29 (1903):
56
PAGE 63 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 63
l `~iere was no law by which men could legally secure control ofthe land they occupied. All the land laws
2 dealt with farming land. There was no provision for leasing or settling the grazing land in tracts large
3 enough to be of any service. Hence the range stockmen simply took possession of the country. Each man
4 chose a location which suited him, fixed in a rough way the boundaries ofhis domain, and helped create a
5 public settlement which made it unpleasant, ifnot dangerous, for a late comer to attempt to share with him
6 the territory he had so marked out. In this way range rights came to have the force of law.e
7
8 A land use pattem that developed in Siskiyou County was to settle on the 160 acres allowed through the
9 disposal acts and use unappropriated public domain to graze cattle (~~base" and `~ngeland"). To anchor
10 control ofthe land, cattlemen claimed appropriative nghts to the use ofwater sources, maintained by
1 1 beneficial use through stockwatering, thus controlling all land within stock walking distance.25 26 (See
12 separate section on \Vater Use.) This developed into the ranch's "customary ~ , recognized through
I 3 mutual stockmen's associations.27 28 (Please see excerpt from the Brand Book of the Siskiyou County
14 Stock Protective Association, dated 1898, which follows this section.)
15 In 1891, the "Creative Act," "Forest Reserve Act" or General Land Law Revision Act (26 Stat. I 103) was
I 6 passed.29 30 The original Act contained no provision whatsoever for forest reserves. It repealed several
I 7 Acts, including the Timber Culture Act of 1 873 and all pre-emption laws.3 I Section 24 that authorized
18 the President to set aside forest reserves was added as a last minute rider to "An act to repeal timber culture
I 9 laws, and for other purposes" by a House-Senate conference committee.32 The authorizing clause gave
20 the President the power to proclaim, but lacked any provision for appropriating funds or for the
21 management ofany forest reserves. In practice, this meant the reserves were absolutely closed to use.33
22 Before expiration ofhis term, President Benjamin Harrison had reserved almost 13.5 million acres.
23
24 "The Organic Act" of 1 897 (30 Stat. 34-36; codified U.S.C. vol. 16, sec. 55 1 ), amendment to the Sundry
25 Civil Appropriations Act, stated that the purpose ofthe forest reserves was for watershed protection and
26 timber production. Lands primarily valuable for mineral ores and agriculture were to be excluded from
27 forest reserves.34 Settlers were allowed to cut firewood, fencing and building material, and mining and
28 prospecting were specifically authorized within their boundaries, but grazing was not mentioned.35 Less
29 than one month affer passage, the General Land Office promulgated regulations that allowed grazing in
30 reserves.36
31
32 In 1905, Forest Service Officials and representatives from the American National Cattlemans Association
33 * (formed ofthe stockmen who owned pre-existing nghts in the forest reserves) met in Colorado. According
34 to Albert Potter, (appointed grazing expert of the Bureau of Forestry in l 90 1 ,) in "Cooperation in Range
35 Management" American National Cattleman's Association Proceedings, (c19 13) p.55:
36
37 "The main points ofagreement, worked out by the department and stock organizations, emphasized tliat
38 those already grazing in the forest ranges would be protected in their priority ofuse; that reductions in the
39 number ofgrazed stock would be imposed only after fair nouce; that small owner would have preference
40 over large; that only in rare circumstances would the department seek total exclusion ofstock from the
4 1 forest; and that the policy of use would be maintained whenever it was consistent with intelligent forest
42 management. Finally, some attempt would be made to give stockmen a voice in making the rules and
43 regulations for the management ofstock on local ranges through the establishment of forest advisory
44 boards."37
45 The September 15, 1903, Yreka Journal reports: "A.F. Potter ofWashington, DC, agent ofthe Bureau of
46 Forestiy arrived Monday. He was accompanied by three field assistants, Mr. Kock, Mr. Wilson and Mr.
47 Patterson. Mr. Potter will remain in the county about a week and his assistants will pass a month here. The
48 objective is to make a complete examination ofthe county as to suitability ofcreating a forest reserve. Mr.
49 Potter passed a good deal ofhis time with Mr. C.FL Edward ofthe Forest Reserve Committee and District
50 Attorney Given: The matter was ftilly discussed and all data prepared by the committee was placed at Mr.
5 l Potter's disposal. He stated that in the creation ofa forest reserve the Government would take in
52 considerafion the wishes ofthe people in the part affected, he ftuther stated worthless land would not be
53 incorporated~therein. The commission will make its report to the Secretary ofthe Interior about February
54 1 , 1 904, and the matter will soon thereafter be determined."
55
PAGE 64 Show Image
Sl&kiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 64
I On April 26, 1905, the Trinity National Forest was created. On May 6, the Klarnath National Forest; on
2 June 2 Lassen National; and on Oct. 3, the Shasta National Forest was created.38
4 \~en the grazing fee was first instituted on the forest reserves it was ofien referred to as a property tax.
S Permits based on a certain number ofAUMs (animal-unit-months or the amount of feed required for one
6 cow for one month) had quantified the value ofa grazers pre-existino ri~ ~~hich ~vas retlected in the
7 grazing tax. The term `~taxt was used almost universally in newspaper reports in the west from I 905 for a
8 decade or more. (The notion ofgrazing taxes is discussed at length in McCarthy Ilour ofTrial: The
9 Conse~ation Conflict in Colorado and the West, l 89 1 1 907 pp 1 6 1 I 64.)39 40
10
I I In 1916, to counter assertion ofranchers that they owned their grazing permits, the Forest Service began to
12 refer to grazing permits as only a `privileget' obtained from the Secreta~ ofAgriculture. (See Annual
13 Grazing Report, 1916, Rio Grande National Forest, Sec. 63, Reoion ~ Dr. 35, RG 95, National Archives.)
14 As a further attempt to discouraoe re cognition ~ claims otpreexistin~ rich ts, the Forest service
I S established a permit waiver system, whereby the permit reverted back to the Forest Service upon sale or
16 transfer ofthe rand). Although this divested any acquired propertv rights represented in tl)e former pennit,
I 7 it did not remove transferable pre-existing property rights and priori~' rights of tenure.4 I The Forest
I S Service then reissued the permit to the new owner as a privilege granted by the federal government,
19 asserting the power to renegotiate the current value ofthe underlying right by reduction ofAUMs or other
20 terms.
21
22 fn I 934, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat 1 269, "Act of June 28, 1 934" codified at 43
23 U.S.C. 3 1 5 et seq) ``to stop injury to public grazing lands by preventino over~orazin~ and soil deterioration,
24 to provide for orderly use, improvement and development, to stabilize the livestock indust7 dependent
2S upon the public range.'' The Act applied to remaininc' unrese r,~ed public domain lands, managed by the
26 BLM, which had not yet been offered for disposal.42
27
28 The original bill, H.R. 6462, that was reported out ofthe Public Lands Committee, reproduced verbatim in
29 the March 1 0, 1 934 Report No. 903 to the Committee of the \VhoIe House, and subsequently approved by
30 the House, included the following amendment:
3 1 "And provided further, That in such orders, and in administering this Act, rights to the use ofwater for
32 minino aoric ultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, vested and accrued and ~vl~ich are reco~ni~ed and
33 acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and decisions ofthe courts shall be maintained and protected in
34 the possessors and owners thereof, and, so far as it is consistent with the purposes ofthis Act, graZing
35 rights similarly recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded."43
36
37 Despite strenuous objections voiced at Senate hearings by Forest Service Chief F.A. Silcox and Assistant
38 Solicitor Rufus G. Poole for the Interior, the Senate Comrnittee on the Public Lands and Su~eys reported
39 out H.k. 6462 with the Scrugham amendment and a "do pass" recommendation.44 (report No. I 182;
40 Calendar No. 1258; published May 26, 1934.) However, sometime before June 12, the Administration
4 1 intervened with rejection ofthe language by Secretary Ickes and a threatened veto by President Franklin D.
42 Roosevelt.45 Senator Patrick McCarmn ofNevada offered replacement language with intentional
43 ambiguity to replace Section 3:
44
45 "~]O permittee complying with the rules and regulations laid down by the Secretary of the Interior shall be
46 denied the renewal ofsuch permit, ifsuch denial will impair the value ofthe grazing unit ofthe pennittee,
47 when such unit is security for any bona fide loan.u
48
49 The new wording effectively meant that grazing preferences and authonzed use levels would exist in
50 perpetuity as long as the ranch unit as a whole was pledged security on a loan.46
51
52 Section lI[ also reads: "Th
at nothing in this subchapter shall be construed or administered in any way to
53 diminish or i
mpair any right to the possession and use ofwater for mining, agnculture, manufacturing, or
54 other purposes which has heretofore vested or accrued under existing law or acquired and maintained in
55 accordance with such law.t' [t establishes that: "Preference shall be given in the issuance of graa:ing
56 permits to those within or near a district who are landowners engaged in the livestock business, bona fide
PAGE 65 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 65
I occupants or settlers, or owners ofwater or water rights, as may be necessary to permit the proper use of
2 the lands, water or water (ights, owned, occupied or leased by them.
3 Section IV reads: ~~No peimit shall be issued which shall entitle the permittee to the use of such
4 improvements constructed and owned by a prior occupant until the applicant has paid to such prior
5 occupant the reasonable value ofsuch improvements.'
6
7 1942 U.S. Statutes at Large, (Ch. 500, 77th Cong. Sess. 2, pp. 654-655) amendment to the Taylor Grazino
8 Act states: `tWhenever use for war or national defense purposes oftlie public domain or other property
9 owned or under the control ofthe United States prevents its use for grazing, persons holding grazing
10 permits or licenses and persons whose grazing permits have been or will be canceled because ofsuch use
1 1 shall be paid out ofthe funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as the head of the
12 department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair and reasonable for the losses suffered be
13 such persons as a result ofthe use ofsuch lands for war or national defense purposes. Such payments shall
14 be deemed payment in full for such losses. Nothing contained in tl~is section shall be construed to create
15 any liability not now existing against the United States.
16
I 7 In McDonald V. McDonald, 302 P. 2d 726, Supreme Court of New Mexico ( 1 956), the I 942 amendment to
I 8 the Taylor Grazing which required payment for grazing rights taken by the Department of Defense, was
19 tested and upheld.
20
2 1 In 1976, Congress passed FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Manage[nent Act- BLM Organic Act, P.L. 94-
22 579) (90 Stat. 2743, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701) "The Congress declares that it is the policy ofthe United
23 States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership."
24
PAGE 66 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 66
I APPENDIX 7 Customs and Culture Water Use
2 HISTORY
3 Early mining ofien used areat amounts of water in various mining practices to recover gold. (See paper on
4 ~Vater Use in Gold Mining.) Water also served as a source of power for mining, milling domestic and
5 agncultural needs. For example, according to the February 6 Yreka Journal. there were I 0 water powered
6 sawmills and S water powered grist mills in the county in 1878.
7
8 In addition1 agricultural irrigation throughout the County has relied heavily on tlie diversion of surface water;
9 often transported through ditches originally built in the nineteenth century; as well as ground water. 4
10 According to the sante Yreka Journal article, by 1878, there were 98 mining ditches of 600 miles in total
1 1 length; and 20 irrigation ditches supplying 10,000 acres. 47 By 1881, there were 250 miles of ditches "of some
12 magnitude" for mining and irrigation in the county. By 1912, 57,000 acres of land were reported as under
1 3 irrigation in Siskiyou County.
14
is The following are a few illustrative examples ofthe historic development ofwater use in Siskiyou County:
16
17 Municipal Water Use:
I 8 Almost all of the cities in Siskiyou County rely on ground water sources for water; including Yreka, ML
19 Shasta, Weed, Etna, Fort Jones, Dunsmuir, Tulelake and Dorris. Some ofthese cities, such as Yreka, rely on
20 wells that draw from aquifers interrelated with surface water springs or streams, such as Fall Creek. The city
¼
2 1 of Montague utilizes both the surface waters of Lake Shastina and the Shasta River for its water supply.
22 POWER DEVELOPMENT:
23 In the late I 800s, the Dennis's had a ten foot water wheel located beneath a flume. The flume carried water
24 from the Shasta River across the river to their alfalfa fields. Flood gates regulated power for the water wheel
25 which operated gnnders for the mowing machine sickles, the butter churn, the cream separator and heir saw.
26 The saw had a large "walking beam" connected to a drive wheel ftom the water wheel. The carriage moved
27 16 foot logs to the straight up-and-do~vn saw that cut the lumber. Mostly they used it to cut fire wood. In later
28 years a hydraulic ram pumped water to the house.
29
30 The first local hydroelectric power plant was built on Shasta River in 1892. In 1902, Edward T. Osbom and
3 1 Edgar T. Wallace purchased the Quinn Electric Light and Power Co. on Shasta River. Extensive
32 improvements were done and the power capacity increased. Eleven months later, Yreka city gave the
33 company a contract for ten added area lights.
34
35 In 1902, Jesse Churchill and Hubert Steele planned to construct an electric power plant at FaIl Creek, on the
36 Klamath River. With a drop of 700 feet, they expected to develop 2,000-2,500 ho~~power. Land and water
37 rights were secured in May on Spring and Fall Creeks and the Kiamath River. The power plant was situated
38 beside Pokegama's ~ilroad line. In September, E.H. Steele conti~cted with W.N. Dale of Sisson (later M~
39 Shasta) for 1,500 poles for transmission lines from Fall Creeds power plane The electrical power was
40 intended for use in Siskiyou's mining industries and to electrically illuminate Hombrook, Montague and
41 Yrek~
42
43 Spring and FaIl Ctttks have their source on a high plateau above the Kiamatti River. Spring Creek was tunied
44 into Fall Creek by a 3,o()() foot ditch. A divetting dam across Fall Creek conveyed the collected waters of
45 both streams to the plateaues brink, tilmugh a ditch 4,650 feet in length. Much ofthe distance was cut through
46 solid rock, and 2,800 feet ofriveted, 30 inch diameter steel pipe line was lair Just outside the power house
47 .. was a cut~ff~ucet weighing 12,000 pounds. In the steel and ix~n powerhouse and transfo~er station was
48 placed the fii~t unit of4 Pelton water wheels and SSO kilowatt elec~c generators.
49
so Work crews strung power lines from Indian Creek, Scott Valley, to the Fall Creek base, passing through Yreka
S I in July 1903. On September 12, the company began delivering power over the 50 miles of line completed.
PAGE 67 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 67
l J.P. Churchill (treasurer) and A.J. Roseborough (secretary) of the new Siskiyou Electric Power Co. were in
2 Medford in March 1 903 to secure contracts for light and power. In May, the company purchased Ashlands
3 Electric Light and Power Co, to take possession in September. The Siskiyou Electric Light and Power Co.
4 estimated their Fall Creek plant would develop 2,000 horsepower. It also owned 2 miles along Klamath River
S where 20,000 horsepower might be developed. This was made possible by the Klamath River falling in a
6 short distance of I 50 feet.
7
8 In I 9 1 7, Copco No. I dam completed, creating a reservoir with I 000 acre surface and catchment of 77,000
9 acre-feet. The first generator unit put on-line in 1918 and second in 1922. ~ieir generating capacity was
10 20,000 KW. In 1925, Copco No. 2 hydroelectric plant was put into commercial operation, consisting of a
I l power house and small reservoir, (5 surface acres and containing 55 acre feet.)
12
13 M[NfNG OPERATfONS:
I 4 SALMON RIVER Placer gold was discovered in 1 850 on the Salmon River near Sa~vyer's Bar Minina
1 5 Most ofthe other important placer "diggings" were developed soon after. As in other streams in flus province,
16 the river bars were first worked by hand methods and later by wing dams and~fiumes. The bench gravels were
I 7 eventually hydraulicked or worked by drift mininG
18
I 9 In I 8S7, about S 1 00,000 was expended for I 5 miles of flume on South Fork of the Salmon River. The year
20 was exceptionally profitable due to the low river, affording easy access to its bed with small flumes.
21
22 Finley's Flat was a high bar worked by the Salmon River Mining Co. in 1895. The company had a sawmill on
23 upper South Fork ofSalmon River and a 7 mile flume and ditch that sluiced away several gravel bars on both
24 sides ofthe river during their 10 years of operation.
2S
26 Vegetables and orchards at Petersburg were irrigated by the long Frink and Cnimbeaugh ditch from South
27 Fork used for mining purposes and to power the Ritner (and Sightman) sawmill in town.
28
29 Around 1915, the Famsworths leased the old Summerville placer mine (about 4 miles upstream from
30 Cecilville,) from Fred Smith and Alex Parker. They dug a new ditch of large proportions by laying an
3 1 hydraulic pipeline from the upper flume, (leftover from the Salmon River mining Co. operation,) setting up a
32 hydraulic giant and blasting out the ditch with hydraulic water pressure. Hard rock was encountered in
33 constructing the ditch and had to be drilled and blasted. This was done by compressing air by introducing
34 water under pressure into the lower end of a large section of hydi~ulic pipe, compressing the air therein, and
35 using the same to operate a pneumatic rock drill.
36
37 Hardly any rocks, large or small, remain on the surface as they w~ blasted into and through the traces. The
38 flumes to recover the gold then dumped the conglomerate into the river were a tailings giant was set up to
39 blast the tailings away from the discharge end ofthe flume. Roscoc Famswo~h invented a robot actuated by
40 water power to control the giant
41
42 SCOTTBAR George Gibbs, in hisjournal ofthe Redick McKee expedifion, wrote that by October of 1851,
43 almost the entire river from Scott Bar to the mouth was "tumed from its bed" with "solid stone or log
44 embankinents, several feet In height and thid~ess," constnic~ed by companies of 1O~O pc~~ons. The Shoe
45 ditch was built on Scott River to set'ie water to hand and drift miners. This ditch was later used for a hydraulic
46 giant on the Quartz Hill mine.
47
48 By 1855, river Bars in Scott River were being heavily worked~ The river from Scott Bar to the Kiamath,
49 . almost a mile, was conveyed through flumes and channels, in which th~ were many water wheels pumping
50 and awaking away to give access to the river beCL Between Scott and Fi~nch Bars a coffer dam was built
S 1 pennitting winter works The Whiting Hill Mine was later worked by the Chinese who built a ditch staring at
52 Thompkins Creel A water powered sawmill was built (with a saw sirnilar to a cross cut worked vertically on
53 the log) as overland transportation was impossible due to the rough terrain. They built the ditch to the fii~t
54 flume site, floated the lumber down the ditch, and repeated the process throughout its constructidn.
PAGE 68 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 68
l N'lining at Scott Bar in 1861-62 was done with pick and shovel wish pans, rockers and ground sluices.
2 Chinese used derricks to remove and dump the gravel into flumes, then separated it with quicksilver. A 1a½c'e
3 amount ofthe mining on Scott river ~~`as confined to the present river channel, ~vitl~ son~e later drittin~ and
4 hydraulic mining by George Nesbit, George Milne and Martin Andrews
) In 1910, Scott Bar (Klamath National Forest) Assistant Ranger J~B Johnston reported that the Qua~z Hill
6 Mining Co. wanted ~5 payment for water used from its ditch to irritate the Scott Bar Ranger Station during
7 the prior summer of 1909. Supervisor Fromme raised the question tl)at since the ditch crossed National Forest A
8 land and since the company was sellinc' water , it should have paid for a special use for commercial conduit.
9 llowever, the District law officer ruled that since the ditch was constructed before I 89 1 and had been in use
10 continually each year since, the company had a legal right ofway and no permit was required The Klamath
I 1 National Forest paid the 55.
12
13 SCOTT R!VLR Wnoht and Fletcher operated the Jackman Claim in Oro Fino. After nine years of usinc
14 drain tunnels and drifting, tkev conve
rted to hydraulic mining. ~e c!2im had a flume 3,000 feet long of a
15 width of5 feet and a depth of34'.
16
17 By 1867, Miners' Ditch Co. of Oro Fino was raged in bringinc' ~~ater from Kidder Creek, I 5 miles awav.
18 ~e project would emplov 400 additional men upon delivery. Mr. Young was spending 57,000 on a ditch to
19 wash tailings that had been imperfectly washed.
20
2 1 In 1 877 Denny & Peterson & Co. installed a flume six teet at the bouom and four feet high at Callahan Ranch.
22 By August, 205 flume boxes were in place. Starting on the South Fork below Callahans and the mouth of
23 Wild Cat to Dredgerville, a number ofsmall rims on the west were mined by the Littlefields. Crawiords and
24 Roche to somewhere above GasburgiCanip Fden. Prior to that, miners had dug the Fore ditch. A stone dam
25 up Fox Creek, flimished water to the ditch which went around the steep serpentine hillsides below the dam in
26 a four foot board flume and ditch the came out near the top of the hill across the creek from Callahans to
27 operate a hydraulic elevator in I 897, (later the Montezuma N'line.)
28
minino 0
29 One of the most significant ~ perations to affect the Scott River was dredging at Callahan. Emest
30 Hayden, in Alone Our ~istorv's Trail: (P.O. Box 1595. Callahan, CA 96014; c 1984,) has described tlie
3 1 Callahan dredging operations as follows:
32 "First the structure and the machinery necessary to dig tne gravel, wash it through a trommel screen, and stack
33 the course rock behind it were built upon a floating boat.
34
35 `~~e boat was anchored at the rear by what is called a spud which was raised by a winch and dropped where
36 desired to form a pivot upon which the boat swung from side to side as tne dredge performed its diooino
37 flinctions.
38
39 "The spud was ofa weight, length and diameter in accordance with the size ofthc dredge.
40
4 1 "Its nose was pointed for penetration into whatever it was dropped. When the spud was raised the dredge was
42 pulled ahead by the stem lines to obtain the amount of bite or step desired for each digging arc of the bucket
43 line.
44
45 "A step was the amount of forward movement and usually was from five to seven feet.
46
47 "[n the process of "stepping" the digging ladder upon which die bucket line ran was raised to tile top of the
48 bank and the bucket line sttrted digging into the ground the desired distance from the step.
49
50 "Then the spud was dropped forming the anchor and pivot for the dredge to be pulled to and from the digging
Si arc.
52
53 "Then the bucket line was started, and the dredge pulled by the port and starboard bow lines began swinging
54 back and forth. At the end ofeach swing the digging ladder was dropped sufficiently to fill the buckets on the
55 retumswing.
56
PAGE 69 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
1 etThc dug material traveled up the digging ladder in tile buckets to where they were dumped into tue washing
2 screen Wrien they traversed the upper tumbler.
4 eIThe uppcr tumbler consisted of a massive shaft on which sprocket projections were a pa~ which in tum fir
S into recesses in the bottom ofeach bucket, thereby imparting the motive power to the bucket chain.
6
7 EeThe gravel then dumped into a revolving trommel screen that was set on about a I 2% grade. ~ie screen
8 consisted ofperforated plates with holes ranging from 318 inch to ~ by 718 inch oblong holes.
9
10 UAS the screen rotated, the tumbling gravel and boulders were subjected to a large volume of high pressure
l 1 streams ofwater, which resulted in all the finer materials, including the gold, being screened out and deposited
12 in the banks ofsluice boxes which recovered the gold, passing the sand and gravel into flie pond at the stem of
13 thedredge.
14
I S `tThe coarser material from the screen was deposited on the stacker belt that built the rock piles no~v seen.
16
17 This describes one dredging arc or swing. Generally tree such arcs were combined to~form a wide pond and
I 8 named from left to right as the port cut, the center cut and the starboard cut.
19
20 ~ depth was dug to bedrock or below water for which the dredge was designed. Normally some bedrock
2 1 was dug and can be seen on top ofthe rock piles wherever bucket line dredges have operated.
22
23 *`There were three bucket line gold dredges on Scott kiver in the Callahan region.
24
25 `tThe first one, built before the tum ofthe century, was a wooden hulled boat. The rest ofthe construction was
26 ofwood also, with the exception ofthe steel components necessary for operation.
27
28 ~`This dredge was powered by steam engines which gave it sufficient power, but was a failure due to the
29 difficult digging conditions coupled with the lack ofalloyed steel which was not available at the time.
30
3 1 ~ second dredge was of the same construction as the first one with the exception of the motive of power,
32 which was electricity generated by water power. The water was conveyed around the hillside in a large ditcl~
33 from the South Fork of the Scott river and brought do~vn the hill to the power plant by a pipeline which
34 developed 350 horsepower.
35
36 e~e second dredge encountered the same difficulties as the fu~t one. Hard bedrock, cemented or semi-
37 cemented gravel, large bouldets and lack ofspecial steel which was not available then.
38
39 When the costs outweighed the benefits, the company leased the boat to ernployces. They broke the
40 intermediate shaft and had to weld iL Some innovations tried wett puit~ping out the pond, drydocking the
4 l dr~ge and then ninning powder dnfts close to the beeock~ They wett then loaded with dynamite, the dredge
42 refloated and the holes blasted. Pumping was accomplished by means of a hydrauUic syphon. Water for this
43 purpose was taken from the Four ~ott) Ditch. The ditch head was taken out of the South Fork of the Scott
44 River at a location known as Stone Dam and tenninated at a point on the brow of Roche HilL This gave a
45 vertical drop ofabout 400 fees, when conducted in a pIpeline down the steep hill, produced a tremendous lot
46 of power.
47
48 Another scheme involved setting up a hydraulic giant and piping into the bucket line of the dredge and
49 washing the material through the trommel sceee~ The coar~c rocks were elevated with the stacker where
50 they were dumped in a large ore car which r~ on an inclined trick and was pulled by an electric powered
Si winch. Then tli~ dredge powerhouse burned down in 1910. The dredge was dismanded and hauled to Trinity
52 Center.
53
54 After a period ofprospecting by the Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields, Inc., a dredge was built at Dredge Camp.
55 It was determined that the ground and the bedrock were exceptionally hard in some places so that extra size
PAGE 70 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I and strength would have to be built in. For example, while buckets of 9 cubic feet were to be used tl1C~
2 would be backed up with the same structure that was used with 18 cubic feet buckets.
)
4 The first operation was to take a sweep upriver ranging from 250-300 feet in width along tl~e westerlv side.
5 Then the dredge crossed over to the easterly side and proceeded upstream to the narrows (Ilaif a mile
6 downstream from Callahan.) Then it turned around and headed back down the valley. The normal operating
7 crew ofthe Yuba Dredge consisted oftnree men: a winchman who operated the boat and t'vo oilers, one for
8 the bow and the other for the stern. It operated 24 hours a day, with three eight-hour shifts oftl~rec n~cn each.
9
10 Designed to dig to a depth of 32 feet below water level, it was able to mine the gravel and some of the
I I bedrock. Usually an amount ofbank was maintained above water level. This averaged about 15 fees so that
I 2 the total capacity of the dredge averaged about 47 feet. In the later part of 1 942, the hull and digging ladder
l 3 were extended to the bottom the deeper ground that was encountered flirther down the valley.
14
1 5 Hayden notes: `~[t was interesting to observe the geologic formation of the river channels in the floor of the
16 valley that had been caused by tremendous flows ofwater that were present when they were cut in the bedrock
17 ofthevalley.
18
I 9 ttThese floods had to be so great and violent that tney swept prior gravel deposits out, cutting down to the bare
20 bedrock in order to leave a history oftheir being there.
21
22 "As the ground was dredged, this ancient history unfolded like a map. For example, channels were disclosed
23 in the bedrock that were 300 feet wide across the bottom, while others were as narrow as 1 0 to I 5 feet.
24
25 KLAMATII RJVER The Brass Wire Mine near Cottonwood Creek was opened on a flat by William H.
26 Smith in late I 85 l or early 1852. Brass wire was used in guying tne huge flume ~at fed water to the higher
27 portion of the mine. Work followe:l along the bars and river bed from Camp Lowe to Ash Creek using
28 wingdams and current wheels and by tunnelling out under the river.
29
30 Some of the later century wing darn operators at Hamburg were Bill Kettlewood, Tom Miner, Bill Offield,
3 l Ben Maplesden, Martin Andrews and Qreen Hicks. There was also some drifling and hydraulicking at
32 Hamburg by Maplesden and sons.
33
34 An 1878 survey of mining operations on the Klamath River suggests tne extent of mining and minino water
35 use in Siskiyou County:
36
37 About 3 miles dowiiriver from Hambuig, the Cap Lowden hydraulic mine and the Jolulnie Oneil placer used
38 water from the Jolirinie Oneil Crcek~ Actoss the river was the Maplesden Mine, securing its water from
39 "Nigger Creeks" The next mine was the Joimnie Everill hydraulic rnine, opposite the Ladd Chrome Mine (6
40 miles above Seiad.) East ofSeiad at Walker Bar; 2 companies ofChinese mined widi demcks. On the south
4 1 bank, J.S. Lowden opc~ed a hydi~ulic mine with water from Wa~r ~ Across the river, the Lee Yct
42 hydraulic had a ~w of25 Chinese operating 2 hydraulics day and night 7 days a week for several years. Thcy
43 used water from Seiad Creek.
44
4S About 2 miles downrivcr on dic south bank was the W.T. Grider and Sons Placer Mine near the banks of
46 Grider Creek from where the mine and farm derived its water. Two hydraulic giants were opcrate~ Also, the
47 Masonic Bar Mine used Grider Q~ water. This was operated by Chinese with derricks. About a mile
48 flirther down was thc Portuguese hydraulic mine owned by James Camp and char1~ Bailey. Across the river
49 was the Hoskins B& Mine opcr~ted by the Chinese. This was a pick and shovel operation using water from
so the KIamath by means ofa dip wheel 20 feet in diatneter.
51
52 The hydi~ulic.mincs from Sciad to Happy Camp and on down the Klamath mined ancient river channels
53 located on mo~untain slopes above the present river. Up to three channels were existing, each cutting to the
54 one below. Most ofthe inines had 2 ofthese channels.
55
PAGE 71 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 71
I ~ie Ft Goffmine owned by lames Camp William Wood and Charles Bailey used water from Ft. Goff Creek
2 to operate hydraulic giants. Thompson Creek fed the Minetta B Placer Mine and the Seattle Placer Mine.
3 Water for hydraulics at the Minetta B was carried over a suspension bridge by means of a 20 inch pipe across
4 the bridge and into the mine. About 7 miles below the Seattle, the Joe Reeve placer mine used water from
5 China Creek for its hydraulics. Below this mine, the river passes through a gorge and the gravel deposit is not
6 visible until the river widens again.
7
S About 2 miles downriver was the Silva and Lee, using water from China Creek. The Williams Point or Jones
9 hydraulic carried water from China Creek over a bridge across the river by means of pipeline to the mine.
10 Another 2 miles downriver was the Gordon hydraulic using water from ~ Creekt1. The Muck-a-Muck
I I or Minnie Reeve hydraulic mine used water from Cade Creek near Happy Camp. The Richardson Mine
12 across the river was the largest hydraulic in the district The water was derived from a 12 mile long ditch from
13 ElkCreek.
14
I 5 Other mines in the Happy Camp area were the Classic Hill hydraulic up Indian Creek. The Van Bruant,
I 6 Smart, Lee Grider and the George Temple. Below Happy Camp old hydraulics included the Siskiyou,
I 7 Wingate China Ock, Heal Bros., Ferguson and Frazier.
18
I 9 By I 9 1 5, extensive hydraulic mining was still being conducted at Happy Camp and Forks of Salmon. From
20 the turn of the century dredging companies became active throughout Salmon and Scott Rivers and their
2 1 Tnbutaries. One Yuba type dredge running 24 hrsiday near Callahan on the Scott River (until 1949) dug to a
22 depth of 50-60 feet below the water line; processed 2 10,000 cubic yds. of soil and gravel per mo.; and use
23 10,000 galimin. pumped from a pond to wash gravel through screens.
24
25 SifASTA RIVER - Water was scarce at the main mining area on Yreka Flats and was necessary to wash the
26 gold from the dirt The only local streams that could be diverted at the necessary elevation were of
27 intermittent flow. Seasonal water became scarce to work the mines and carts were used to ti~nsport pay~irt to
28 the creek to wash out gold. District meetings were held in l 852, and the `tBig Ditch's project was born. The
29 ditch was to run from Shasta River and Parks Creek descending from an elevation sufficient for a running
30 grade to Yreka and Hawkinsville. When completed, although the source of inflow was thirty miles from
3 1 Yreka, it was to run 96-100 miles in length.
32
33 During the course of construction, the Yreka Ditch Co. ran out of fmances. After one failed attempt at
34 reorganization, the workers took over the Yreka Water Co. "Fathert of the ditch, Louis Worttnan, organized
35 the workers on the basis that they would bc paid from ~Efij~~ Water" upon completion and would loose wh~t
36 was owing them ifthe project was never completed. Wortman received 114 inter In the ditch for his effoits
37 upon completion and was later in charge of its operation and maintenance as Ditch Supervisor.
38
39 The "Big Ditch" was completed in the Spring of 1856, at an average ~de of2 inches to the hwi&ed foot
40 and cost of$2,SOO a mile. Many miners we~ paid for th&ir work with script to be ttimburscd with water for
.4 1 their claims, when available. Supplies were flirnished by Yreka meidiants, including food and clothing for
42 the wodce~. The value ofthese was to be reimbursed at a rate of$2~O~A)O a day from the sale of~~a~e~
43 when the project was completes
44
45 At oompietion, the company sold the water to tile mincrs on Greenhorn, Yreka Flats and Hawkiiisvill~ The
46 rate charged was 50 cents per mine?s inch per day rnd water i~overed after first usage was z~sold at the same
47 i~e at lower levels. Ditch tender were paid halfin cash and halfin water.
48
49 Physically, construction of the ditch was begun in 1854 and completed in 1856. Blasting powder was
so available, but vety expcnsive, and had to be bmught in by mule-backs A great deal ofthe "blasting" was done
51 by building fii~~ on the z~ks and dasWmg cold water on them. It took from Mai~h to August of 1856 to get
52 water to Yreka Flats, due to squirrel holes, leakage, etc.
53
54 Flumes were originally used to by-pass many roccy points. Lumber theses was cut by Maxwell Sawmill near
55 the head of the Shasta River. All but two of the wooden flumes at Parks Creek and Harding Gulch were
PAGE 72 Show Image
SI~kIyo~ County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 72
1 eventually replaced by cuts. Later, in 1949, the remaining ~vo ~ replaced by half round metal
2 ones
)
4 In addition to the Shasta River and Parks Creek, water was taken from Willow Creek, Mac's Gulch, Scarface,
S Cram Gulch, Guy's Gulch, Schulmeyer Gulch, Yreka Creek, Greenhorn Creek and Hamburg Gulch The
6 crying capacity of the "Bin Ditch" was approximately 1,400 miner's inches from Shasta River and Parks 1'
7 Creek, and about 1,900 inches for the rest ofthe ditch.
8
9 Only t'vo developed water rights preceded those of the "Big Ditch" and had priority: Long Gulch by John
10 Neilon and ``Doc'' Williams (later the Caledonia) ranch. The ``Bin Ditch'' had priority ~~`ater rights to eve~~
I 1 other stream from its head to its end. Other very early irrigators were N.H. Eddy, (the property later owned by
12 Dwight Hammond); Bob Mills on Carrick Creek on the Mills Ranch; a man named Decker and Sam Jackson
I 3 on Carrick Creek; Huseman, east of the modem town of Grenada; and property owners on Big Springs (later
14 owned by Ellis Louie.) There were numerous early irrigation ditches in the Little Shasta area including
15 Te~villigers, Harts, Martins, Davis, Long and others.
16
1 7 The height of the ditch above the rest of the valley made it possible for four other ditches to. receive water
1 8 from the main feeder ditch. As the ditch came &ound the hill west ofGrenada to the farrns on the west sIde of
l 9 Yreka Valley, it was divided into laterals: the Greenhorn Ditch, Egbert Ditch, Portuguese Ditch, and Cranson
20 Ditch. Farmers adjacent to the water planted apples, peach, pear and plum orchards, also vineyards and alfalfa
2 1 in order to get the benefit ofthe five ditches.
22
23 According to Frank Herzog, the Greenhorn Ditch was pnmarily used for mining, taking water out of
24 Greenhorn Creek about one and a half miles up Greenhorn. To preserve water along Greenhorn Creek, a
25 series of reservoirs and dams were built to use and re-use the water. Settling ponds were built the full length
26 of the creek, otherwise when the water got down to the last mine, it was so full of sediment it would hardly
27 flow.
28
29 Middle Greenhorn Ditch Company, (M.G.D. - also known as Sproll or China Ditch Co.,) formed to bring
30 Greenhorn water through a gulch on the left to Yreka Flats to work claims. Gold was subsequently found in
3 1 quantities below the ditch. During the summer, the M.G.D. Co. appropriated most of the water and little was
32 left to serve the new claims. The new miners claimed the watershould be allowed to run in its natural channel
33 and cut the ditch in 1855. The ditch owners repaired it and petitioned Judge k.L. Westbrook for an injunction
34 restraining diversions away from the ditch. The ditch was cut again Robert Wilson who was arrested. The
35 miner's raided the jail and freed the prisoner. Citizens confronted the mob. Shots were fired and there were
36 some deaths. The incident was called the "Greenhorn War."
37
38 Litigation continued for a number of yeai~ until it was fmally resolved~ The decision was that the ditch
39 company was entitled to as much water as the original capacity ofthe ditch and the balanced belonged in the
40 strCanL Many court decisions regarding early water disputes in Siskiyou County are said to have helped to
4 l form the Califbniia "Doctrine ofAppropriative Rights."
42
43 The ~ ditch headed at the bridge at the foot ofMiner Street and trave[~ed down along Yreka Creek to the
44 tt& ofthc Yi~ka Motel betwccn the main motel building and Mr Young home on M~ Street down Main
45 on the east side in front of Major White's home and across Lennox Street about opposite the State Highway
46 Pattol office and thence to Hawkinsville.
47
48 The Portuguese ditch came out of the main Grtenhom Creek on the Ned Sch~~atka place a short distanee
49 above the sawmill ofsharps at the west turn up Greenhorn Road and meandered around through the west side
so ofthe valley on to Hawkinsville. It was uscd for irrigating and mining its flill length. The last owners of the
S I ditch We(c Henry LeMay and Mr N. Lawr~~ce.
52
53 The fifth and~1ast ofthis system ofditches was the ditch that runs in the hills on the east side ofYreka valley to
54 Haw~1le and was used to mine in Yrcka Creek bed near Hawkinsville. The Yreka Creek Drainage Co.
55 had nearly completed their 1,600 foot tunnel along Yreka Creek Channel to their claims in 1863 and were
56 supplying water to the Hawkinsville dit~ More than 1,000 clalins had been recordei
PAGE 73 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 73
2 In 1857, S.S. Brooks, William Shores, J.B. Rosborough and 1.14. Russell inco~orated the "Shasta River Canal
3 Co.9' to take over the `wyreka Water Ditch Co." In 1859, George Greathouse purchased controlling interest in
4 the "Shasta river Canal Co." Greathouse was a Yreka banker and a Southern sympathizer who outfitted a
5 couple of frigates for the Confederate Navy. By that time, the Bdson brothers and their sister, (active
6 supporters of the North,) had acquired considerable property under the ditch in Gazelle. This caused
7 considerable frictIon.
S
9 Heavy storms in l 862-63 destroyed flumes and miles of ditch. After borrowing fro(fl N.D. Julian to repair,
l 0 Greathouse went broke. ~e new owners instructed Wortman to turn the water out at Willow Creek when
I I there was a break north of that point. This benefitted the Edson Bros., Neilon and Farraher in Gazelle,
12 creating good will.
13
14 The Big Ditch still continued to supply water for mining on flats an gulches between Yreka and Shasta River
15 in 1879. A reservoir was built on the Ream property about 4 miles south of Yreka and a lateral built to the
16 east ofYreka. (A flume across the road and railroad on Butcher Hill were still in evidence in the 1920s.) The
1 7 reservoir, (which now obtains its water locally,) was known as Brazie's pond
l8
19 In 1884, the "Big Ditch" (including L. Wortinan's 114 interest) was resold to Life Edson, Lewis Foulke and
20 Lewis Webb. All had extensive farm holdings a few miles north of Gazelle. Afier acquisition, a weir was
2 I installed south of Gazelle, measuring their respective shares of water. Excess was dropped off the hill into
22 was later known as the Webb or Company Ditch. After the ditch was purchased, all of it north of Gazelle was
23 abandoned. This made a great deal of difference to the ground water table in that area and more water was
24 available for irrioation
25
26 The remaining portion of the ditch ran along a 1 5 mile stretch from the Shasta River to the weir, with about a
27 four mile stretch used to convey Willow Creek water to farms west of Gazelle: Farralier-Wortman Ranch and
28 part ofthe~original Edson Bros. property, later Dan Shelley ranch.) The Webb prope[ly was eventually sold in
29 3 parcels and water divided on a rotation basis. The Edson Bros. subsequently became Edson & Foulke Co.
30
3 1 According to an article entitled "The Big Ditch" in the 1960 The Siskiyou Pioneer, pages 47-SO, written by
32 Lewis M. Foulke, James Farraher and Edson L. Foulke, Jr.; in 1942, Edson & Foulke Company was dissolved
33 and its properties at Gazelle were sold to various interests. Eight different parties held interests in varying
34 amounts in the waters conveyed by the ditch. By 1 949, it was obvious that major repairs to the ditch would
35 have to be made. In order that these repai£~ should be equitably borne an agreement was di~wn up by the
36 VariOUS ihterests holders forming the Ecison Foulke Yreka Ditch Company, the title being taken from that
37 given in the adjudication. Clarence Dougherty was elected President; EcIson Foulke, Jr., Secretary; and Glenn
38 Macwell, Ditch Master.
39
40 Soon after the formation of this ditch company, an extensive series of improvements were strrtei The two
4 1 remaining wooden fltii~ies were replaced with metal, diversions were built and measuring weird were
42 established at various points. In 1950-1951, Dan M~w was employed to widen the ditch from Parks Cock
43 to the weji; where it leaves the mountain. This poftion ofthe ditch was located on stecp mountainside and the
44 lower bank, after nearly a ccntiuy ofusage, had become quite weak~ M~w rebuilt this portion with a power
45 shovel, greatly increasing the safety factor.
46 NOTh: In the early 1900s, prominent local attorney James F~er, step son of Louis Wor(man (1)itch
47 supcrvisor and "father" ofthe Big DItchi Yreka Ditcw Shasta River CanaV Edson~FouIke Yreka Ditch,) was
48 lar~e1y instrumental in obtaining passage of the California Water Act providing for adjudication of all wiater
49 rights upon a stre~in system and provisions for water master sereice. Water disputes over the ditch had been
50 marked by gunp~y Prior to this time there was at least one authenticated instance of a water dispute
5 1 Involving the ditch being temporarily settled with a shoe An attempt to dynamite a diversion dam to the
52 ditch was fiusti~t
ed by Sam Black, an employee ofEdson & Foulke Co., who.was familiar with dynamite, by
53 rushing in and disconnecting the burning fiis~. Innumerable lawsuits cir~ve many farmers to discouragement
54 and some in to bankruptcy, but only settled matters bete'een the litigants involved and settled nothing insof~
55 as other water users on the same stream were involved.
56
PAGE 74 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 74
I AGR[CULTURE:
3 SUASTA VALLEY (BIG SPRINGS) Around 1 870, August Loule and Joe kose were told by an Indian
4 worker ofgood farming land with plenty ofwater, Big Springs. Even though it had an abundance of water, it
5 had to be pumped on to the higher ground surrounding the springs. At the most promising spot on Big
6 Springs Creek, down from the springs themselves, they found t'vo men who had niade a dam and some
7 ditches and were trying to fann (one of these was Robert Young.) They paid the men ~ I OO a piece for their `4'
8 squatters's nghts. Rose and Louie started to homestead 80 acres each. but were allowed to double that acreage
9 to I 60 each bcfdre tlicy ~provcd up."
10
l 1 Rose and Louie settled below a tule swamp with springs flowing through lava faults. ~is swamp drained into
I 2 the Shasta River through what was later named Big Springs creek. Rose and Louie built a dam above the
1 3 original squatter's dam and this was how Big Springs Lake was fb~ed. ~ey divided the water from the Big
14 Springs Lake by one using it for three days and then ~e otuer for three days.
is
16 John Rose worked some land next to his brother, Joe Rose. In the early 1870s he built a water wheel to
17 irrigate his garden and a little pasture. The water wheel operated by the force and weight of the stream and
1 8 served as an irrigation "pump." The wheel was used until about 1 920 and had been rebuilt at least t'vice.
19
20 `More than 1,500 gallons per minute gush from Big Springs to fill the lake. Speculations about the source of
2 1 the water are that they are fed from ~t. Shasta snow fields or Grass Lake.
99
23 In 1 884, Edward M. Stevenson also settled in Big Springs. Bill Burns had been squatting on 1 60 acres of
24 land, planning to homestead. Bums had dug I I wells and had hit only rock. Stevenson bought Bums cabin
25 and rights for $15 and a silver watch. He dug a well and hit water at 27 feet, going to 40 to ensure a good
26 supply. The fa~ was sold in 1 9 1 3 to the Mt. Shasta Land and Irrigation Co. (Grenada District.)
27
28 In 1912, Jim Bums, Bill Wilson and Edward Stailcup fomied a corporation known as Edward Stallcup and
29 Sons, Co., Inc. The Stallcups had cleared many acres of land, some of which was sold to the Big Springs
30 Land Co. (later the Ted Kucera, Houdeshell and George Leal places.) All of these places were irrioated from
3 1 the Big Springs lake through the Stallcup ditch. The corporation had a 1903 priority to irrigate 4 1 0. 1 acres
32 from ffie Big Springs Lake through the Stallcup pumping plant and ditch at 6.2 cubic feet per second. When
33 land was sold to ffie Big Springs Land Co., the water that was fonnerly used on these places was diverted to
34 the Stallcup place.
35
36 In 1915, a promoter named Harlow and Dr. Dwirinell of Montague developed water from a dozen wells near
37 Big Springs to Inigate 10,000 acres. This was known as the Big Springs lirigation Distri~ (According to tile
38 1991 Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force or KRBFTF Long Range Plan For Thc Klamath River Basin
39 Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Pro~~m. In 1915, the Montague Land and krigation Co. pumped
40 water into its ditches through two centrifligal pumps lifting 16,840 gallons per minute to ditch heads 86 and
41 107 feet above, to be pleased onto 5,000 acres ofadjacent lands. Water from a dozen wells near Big Springs
42 irrigated another 10,000 acres.)
43
44 Dr. I)winnell sold his interests to partner Harlow and associates and took over thc Montague lAnd and
45 lm'gation Co. plus tile Cricket flat &eL Harlow took over tile Big Springs or "Juniper" operation and
46 promoted another pumping irrigation system under tile name of ML Shata Land & Itn'gafion Co. to Irrigate
47 the land south ofGrenadL latter this was called tile Grenada Distri~
48
49 Harlow and Dwiniiell had originally bought out old pioneer settle in Big Springs who had partially clcar~
50 juniper trees and brush by hand by digging and burning stttnps for g[~ifl 6nns. They brought in 2 Holt
S 1 Caterpillar 6O's~and began to clear sage and br~h. Leo Brown was awarded tile contract to pull out tile trees
52 there and clear.~ about 3,000 acres. Only 2,000 ofthese had been jnigated by 1960.
53
54 In 1917, the Big Springs laand and lni'gation Co. drilled ~5 pipeAined wells at tile edge of Big Springs Lake
55 in an effort to develop more water. Prior to tills, tile water flowed evenly into tile lake from tile cracks in tile
56 lava rock. The unew~ water bubbled up Over tile tops oftile pipes giving an artesian effect, however tile actual
PAGE 75 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 75
l flow of water did not increase. (In years later when the level of the lake was dropped so that the Loule
2 brothers could repair the head gate in the dam, the water quit bubbling. When the lake went back to its nomial
3 level, the bubbling recommenced. This proved that the effect was caused only by the pressure of tlie water in
4 the lake.)
5
6 (MONTAGU£) In 19 13, promoters Harlow and Dr. Dwinnell developed a pumping irngation system to
7 irrigate 3,000 acres of land lying south and west of Montague and named it the Shasta River Water
8 Association.
9
I 0 In I 923, the Montague Water Conservation District obtained a permit for 55,000 acre feet per season from
I I Shasta River (reservoir and canal); and I 5,000 acre feet per season from Parks Creek (canal.)
1 2 In I 925, the Montague Water Conservation District was formed by the voters. The district embraced
I 3 approximately 23,000 acres of land, mostly north and east of Montague (although only approximately
1 4 1 5,800 acres are being served with water, includina t
he city of Montague.) The district hired John Beemer as
I 5 engineer and presented a plan that included creating a 60,000 acre reservoir on the Shasta River and the
1 6 diversion into the river of Parks Creek upstream from the dam. The plan also included a 2 1 mile main canal
1 7 and about 55 miles of laterals and a smaller reservoir on a hill about 5,000 feet east of Montague to provide
18 the city with water.
19
20 Examination of the reservoir site disclosed no faults or fractures that might cause leakage. A Professor
2 1 Anderson footnoted the report with the statement: `I have never seen, nor can I see, any reason for doubting
22 the adaptability of the reservoir site you have selected, or the adaptability of the formations underlying or
23 surrounding it, to retain water as well as any other...~
24
25 The cost of the dam was estimated at ~ I 395,000. Sutherlin, Barry and Co. bought the bonds at .90 cents on
26 the S I .00. Nevada Contracting Co. was selected as the builder. Mid-way through completion, the buyer of
27 the bonds ran out of money and a New Orleans bank flimished flinds for completion. Construction was
28 completed in 1927.
29
30 With the dam, ditches, city reservoir etc., completes it was then discovered that the lava formation behind the
3 1 dam would not hold water. The water sank, and either appeared on the John Soule ranch or went underground
32 into the aquifer. The Montague Conservation District went banlrrupt. The Montague Banking Co. beeene
33 involved and had to close its doors in I 933. Many businesses and stores closed and were sold for little or
34 nothing. Although the bond holders were restrained under a govemment moratorium from foreclosing,
35 landowners and homeowners beme encutnbered with heavy debt
36
37 In 1940, the district directors ~ppled with a debt of the original bond of $1,395,000 plus intcg~st and
38 penalties amounting to a total of$3 million. An effort was made to work out a settlement with New Orleans
39 and St, Louis bond holds (represented by Buell and associates.) Montague vote~~ and City Council members
40 made an unsuccessfiil ate~pt to halt the deal in ~vor ofa more costly federal payoffpla~ A settlement was
41 fmally made with the bond holders in 1943 to take $.IO on the dollar plus an additional $25,OOO. The debt
42 was assumed by individual pmperty owners, some ofwhom ~d offtheir indebtedness while oth~ allowed
43 their propeey to ttvert to Buell and associates. A final agreement was made in 19S5 that allowed the district
44 to apply for disch~e ~m bankruptcy.
45
46 Over the year; natuil processes "sealed" the permeability of the stwctiu~~ As flood waters poil~ into the
47 reservoir; soil and debris w~ deposited increasing its store capacity The reservoir has a sur~ce arta of
48 2.85 sq. miles, a mean depth of22 feet and a maximum storage of4l,3()() a~4eet~ Water is conveyed from
49 Lake Shastina through the dist~ict~s canal to its service area, about IS miles nor. The Montague Water
so Consereation District provides water to about I I,O()() acres ofthe 48,000 acres of irrigated f~nnland in Shasta
S 1 Valley frog its~iescrvoir; Lake ShastiriL
52
53 OF SPECIAL NOTE: An unusual ~gafion system, in place by 1873 at Forest House, was created ~m a
54 major pipe line constructed of logs laid under ground for 3/4 of a mile. A 4 1/2 inch bore was made through
55 the logs by machinery run by horsepower. The logs were driven together and banded with iron rings. At the
PAGE 76 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I end of~e pipe line, a fifty mile ditch system conducted water to all parts ofthe ~ and to a resc~oir used
~ for cutting ice in the winter.
4 In 1874, on F. J. King's ranch, (5 miles south of Yreka on the Shasta River,) Salt was manufi~ctured at Kin~s
5 Salt works. An artesian well was bored to a depth of675 feet. Flow from the well yielded 334,626 gallons of
6 water every 24 hours. Greater depth was sought to obtain water carrying a higher percentage of salt. ~ie
7 water was passed through a succession ofsettler and evaporation vats, over a long willow and brush basin and
S into cauldrons where it was boiled into salt.
9
10 In 1938, Lewis M. Foulke had a valuable crop ofsugar beet seed growing in a very d~y year ~iree pit or
I I trench wells were put in to augment the water. Subsequent to this, numerous pit wells `mere establisl)ed
12 including: Edson Foulke, Whitsett and Owsley of Gazelle; Timmons and Bruinsma south of Grenada:
I 3 Ralston's and Gige~s east of Grenada. The pit wells, combined with trenches, served both as irrigation and
14 drainage.
15
16 According to the KRBFTF (citing C. Ferchaud personal communication,) in 1970, the California Departinen~
I 7 of Water Resources estimated 130,300 acre feet of water was applied by agriculture in the Shasta Valley~to
18 irrigate 48,800 acres; 1980 146,100 acre feet ofwater to irrigate 45,800 acres; 1985 144,000 acre feet of
19 watertoirri~ 46,500 acres; and l9~~ - 150,500 acre feet ofwater to irri~ 50~000 acres.
20
2 1 THE SHASTA RIVER WATER USE RJGJ(JS ADJUDICATION On February 1 5, l 928, an adjudication of
22 water nghts on the Shasta River and tributaries was decreed, entitled `Order Determining and Establishing the
23 Several Rights by Appropriation to the Use of the Waters of Shasta River and its Tributaries,' (Book I of
24 Orders of Detennination, page 1 17.) A water master service was set up. Prior historic agreements be~'een
25 individual landowners were incorporated into the adjudication.
26
27 According to the decree, beneticial uses were established as
28 domestic, municipal, mining, power, stockwaterina irritation of described lands and winter impoundment in
29 reservoirs to be utilized for these same beneficial uses.
30
3 1 The stream during irrigation season (March 1 - November 1 ) was been divided into I 0 systems, considered
32 unrelated to other Systems: 1.) Shasta River above its confluence with Big Springs Creek; 2.) Boles Creek and
33 tributaries; 3.) Beaughan Creek and tributaries; 4.) Canick Creek and tributaries; S.) Parks Creek and
34 tributaries; 6.) Shasta River below confluence with Big Springs Creek and Big Springs Creek and its
35 tributaries 7.) Little Shasta and tributaries; 8.) Willow Creek and tributaries; 9.) Yreka Creek and tributaries
36 and 10.) Miscellaneous Independent Springs, Gulches and Sloughs (includes Ellison, Fiock and Garden
37 springs; Inconstance Creek; WIiite, Kieman, McCloud and Qir sloughs; Schulmeyer, Guys and Hanly Gulch.
38
39 The de~ee states: "Each ofthese units can be administered more or less independently ofthe others during the
40 low flow or critical period of each season, therefore the rights in each unit have been grouped together as
4 1 shown in said tables." Each ofthe 10 systems has been adjudicated as a Separate unit as to relative priorities of
42 water rights USC[~ 011 that system during Irrigation season. The earliest right dates to 1850, although there are a
43 great numher da~g back to the 1850s, 1860s and 1 870s.
44
45
46 Rights to the Shasta River and Parks Creek for what remained of the "Big Ditch" at the time, (titled the
47 "Edson-Foulke Yi~a Ditch,") were set at 28~ cubic feet per second and 9.9 cubic feet per second
48 respcctivcly. P~vision was also made for t[~sporting water in minor quanfities firm the source to a couple
49 ofother ranches that were traversed by the ditch.
so
51 :.Aseparatescctioni~nksth
52 non-Irrigation.. ~ e priority of appropriators to the use of the Shasta River and its tributaries during
This includes, domestic, municipal, stockwatering, mining, power (such as used for
53 flour and lumber mills and by the California Oregon Power Co.,) alternate supplies of water and winter
48
reservoirs.
55
PAGE 77 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 77
I Some water use rights were licensed subsequent to the adjudication. The Shasta Valley Wildlife Area (SVWA)
2 managed by the California Department of Fish and Game has nine state licensed water rights, (#5066 AIB
3 dating back to the mid I 940s- 1950s) obtained with the land purchase of the foyer Whiskey Lakes Ranch.
4 Water rights originate from the Little Shasta River. Their stated beneficial uses are irric' stock ~~aterin~
5 and recreation. Cereal crops are grown on the reflige for the benefit ofmigrato~ birds and wildlife. Pasture is
6 leased for going. Altliougli recreational uses are occurrino on Bass and Steamboat Lakes Trout Lake is
7 maintained as a pemianent wildlife sanctuary with no public access. ~e DFG has stated its intent to apply for
8 a change in use to establish ponds and recycle irrigation tailwater.
9
1 0 Approximately 5,840 acre feet of water may be stored in the three off-stream n)an-made rese~oirs (Bass,
1 1 Trout and Steamboat Lakes,) during the winter from November 1 to April l (May I for Steamboat Lake). Up
1 2 to 9.6 cubic feet per second (cfs.) of water may be diverted year-round to irrigate the pastures north of Bass
I 3 Lake, however, this is subject to release of 2cfs. of water for supenor downstream water rights during
14 irrigation season. An additional 6 cfs. may be diverted from March 1 to June 1 to irrigate the pastures west of
15 TroutLake.
16
1 7 According to the Shasta Valley Wildlife Area Management Plan, a chinook fishery does not occur in the Little
I 8 Shasta River and it would not be possible to establish steelhead runs. Wa~ water
19 angling opportunities are maintained in Bass Lake on the refuge for public recreation. Other recreational
20 opportunities identified are
2 l fall waterfowl and dove huntino do~ t raining, photography, wildlife viewi~~~ nature St udy and educational
22 activities.
23
24 SCOTF VALLEY Many of the extensive irrigation ditches is Scott Valley had also been developed for
25 mining purposes. For instance, in I 868, the Miners' Ditch Co. of Oro Fino brought water from Kidder Creek,
26 IS miles away. In addition to mining, the Kidder Creek ditch irrigated five ranches east ofGreenview and five
27 moreatOroFino.
28
29 Another ditch built in Scott Valley was the Wolford ditch, built around 1867, which served a number of
30 farmers on the east side of Scott Valley be~veen Eti~a and Callahan. Known as the "company or fanners"
3 1 ditch it wasjointly owned by nine ranchers.
32
33 In 1920, the Scott Valley Irrigation District was formed. This irrigated approximately 5,000 acres. There were
34 numerous other ditches on ~e west side ofScott Valley, Quartz Valley and Ploughman's Valley.
35
36 As a 1971 Memorandum from George IL Baumli of the Depa[m'ent of Water Resources, Scott Valley has
37 been historically subject to periodic flooding. "The principal flood areas of the valley are along the Scott
38 River, over the debris cone of Kidder Creek, and along Moffet Creek on the Valley floor. Minor flooding
39 occcs on the average of once every three years and the most recent major floods occurred in 1955 and
40 1964...'~
41
42 An August 10, 1938 Western Sentinel ttported; "The Bureau of Rivers and harbors, with the U.S. Army
43 Enginec~ is cle&iiig the rivers throughout Scott Valley of debris from floods and staited this week on the
44 Scott Rivers" The work was supervised by Roscoe C. Hilderbrand of Richmond. The article states
4S Hildcrbrmd " has been doing nine miles ofwork on the Shasta and Humbolt Rivers and at Hombrrok. This Is
46 flood control work and Is sponsored by the govemmenL" The work `vas being done with a 40 "A.C." and a 60
47 Caterpillar ti~ctor, each equipped with a blade.
48
49 According to 0. LewIs of Scott Valley, they removed vegetation along Scott River between Horn Lane and
so Meamber Bridge; straightened the channel and constructed dikes. This sped up the speed of the water and the
S 1 erosion. Many niethods were employed over the years to control the Scott River. Pilings were driven by hand
52 to makejetties~nd revetments. Trees by the hundreds and rocks were piled to prevent soil loss. The pilings
53 ?otted, the trees floated out ofplace and the rocks rolled into the river bottom.
54
PAGE 78 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Mana9ement Plan
February 1996
I Afzer a destructive flood in 1964, the U.S Corps of Engineers did post-flood debris cleanup and eve
restoration work. In this, and prior post-flood reports, the Corps detennined that none of their flood contTol
) projects were found to be economically justified.
5 The K~FTF Lone Ranoe Plan, citing a CDWR 1963 report, states that in 1958, CD\VR estiniated 1 18,20u
6 acre feet of water was applied by agriculture in Scott Valley to 3 1,300 acres throu oh 240 miles of ditch and
7 pipelines by about 200 diversions. Considerable acreage was sub-irrigated or dry farmed. The Plan, citing C.
S Ferchaud personal communication, states that in 1970, CDWR estimated 92,400 acre feet of water was
9 applied by agriculture to irrigate 3 1,500 acres; 1980 98,700 acre feet ofwater to irri~ 33.500 acres; 1985
10 97,600 acre feet ofwater to irrigate 33,600 acres; and 1988 96,400 acre feet ofwater to irri~ate 34
,l00acres.
11
12 Based on periodic land use su~eys, (CDWR 1965; CDWR 1993,) the amount of irrioated fa~land in the
I 3 valley has not changed significantly since 1 958. A U.C. Extension Services study of CDW~ photographic
14 records ofboth the Shasta and Scott Valleys in 1958, 1968, 1978 and 1991 show no appreciable gain or loss in
l 5 lands under cultivation or in pasture over time. Cropland in alfalfa increased slightly and Grains decreased
1 6 Lands under cultivation seemed to have reached their peak in l 968 and decreased sI ioh tly since then.
[7
18 DWR Bulletin No. 83, ``Klamath River Basin lnvestiaation' July 1964, evaluated five potential surface water
I 9 storage projects (including East Fork Scott, French Creek, Kidder Creek and Moffet Creek) and ground water
20 development, concluding that ground water development would be cheaper. The studv estimated that
2 1 development ofthe ground water would yield approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year.
23 A I 97 1 Memorandum from George R. Baumli of the Department of Water Resources analyzed and reported
24 on the results of 1970 field studies in Scott Valley. The report projects an increase in population from 3,000 in
25 1970 to approximately 5,000 in 2020; with domestic water use projected to increase to about 2,000 acre-feet
26 per year in 2020.
27
28 Agricultural use in 1970 was about 1 12,000 acre-feet per year ofsurface water and 5,000 ofground water, for
29 a total of l 17,000 acre-feet annually for irrigation of32,00O acres. The report projected that agricultural use in
30 2020 would be approximately 147,000 acre-feet per year, with the additional water being used to irrigate lands
3 1 already under partial irrigation and to develop lands not yet under ~gation.
32
33 Following a petition to the State Water Resources Control Board requestino a statut ory adjudication of the
34 water nghts in the Scott River Basin by the Scott Valley Irrigation District, the DWR concluded that an
35 increase in the number ofpumps in the river and pumping from shallow wells near the river (that draw directlv
36 from the Scott River) had caused the demand for late summer water to exceed supply.
37
38 Comments made by the Califbmia Depa[t[nent of Fish and Game in connection with the filing of the 1974
39 Adjudication `~Notice of lntent~' included the following:
40
4 1 "Many ofthe methods and extent ofdive~ion and irrigation currently in practice in the Scott River Basin have
42 a large degree of incompatibility between agriculture and fisheries. The flows required to inaintain fishery
43 values and support heavy agricultural diversions cleariy are not in the system duriiig the later part of July,
44 August and often in September. Many ofthe streams would have critical level flows (less than minimum)
45 during this time even ifno water was diverted."
46
47 Pi~blem sections ofthe stream noted for going dry or intennittent flows during the summer months: (1) Scott
48 River at river mile SO for 1-3 miles below the dive~ion ditch; (2) East Fork Scott River below dive~ion dams;
49 (3) Etna, Kidder and Patterson C~ks over several miles of lower ttaches; (4) Sniktaw and Shackleford
so Creeks near mouths; (5) Pattesson Creek (near Meamber Bridge) and Indian Creek; (6) Moffet Creeks
SI
52 The 197 1 Memorandum stated that diversions existing at that time "use all of the summer flows of the Scott
53 River. ManY ranchers must stop irrigating their pasture during the late summer due to lack of water in the
54 river and its tributaries. If additional lands are to be lirigated or if more water is to be used on presendy
55 irrigated lands, new water supplies must be developed~..The least expensive and most easily developed soucce
56 ofaddifional water supply is the ground water basin. Relatively little ground water development has occurred
PAGE 79 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resouce Management Plan
February 1996 page 79
I in Scott Valley, but as water demands increase this source ofsupply should receive additional use. The 1971
2 report concluded that "Scott Valley has more than enouh oround water to supply both the irrioation and
3 domestic needs tl~rough 2O2O.~
4
S The I 97 1 Memorandum described the Scott Valley ground water basin as underlying approximately 40,000
6 acres of relatively flat valley land stretching from the lower end of the dredger tailings near Callanan to the
7 mouth ofthe valley. The average depth to the water table is ten feet and the average saturated thickness of the
8 water-beann~ fdnnations is approximately 90 feet. The total volume of water stored in this fonnation is
9 estimated to be about 400,000 acre-feet. Usable storage capaci~ ~vould be influenced by the economics of
10 pumping from various depths and by the volume of ground water which could be annually recharged by
I 1 precipitation and streamflow. Also, a significant lowering ofthe existing ~ro und ~~~ater table would necessitate
12 surface diversion or pumped irrigation to lands now receiving subirriaation ft om ground ~vater. Existing ~vells
13 in the area average 25 feet in depth and would become inoperable if fliture ground water development drew
14 the water levels below this depth...No estimate of total safe annual yield from the Scott Valley ground water
15 basin has been made."
16
I 7 Until the late I 960s, agricultural water was mainly derived from surface water diversions and flocol irriGation
18 was the primary application method (McCreary-Koretsky, 1967.) Most wells were shallow and used only for
I 9 domestic and stockwatering supplies (Mack, 1958). The main source later changed to wells and the method
20 changed to sprinkler irrigation for alfalfa and grain fields. State data on well dnllin~ in
Scott Valley indicate
2 1 an increase in the number of new wells each year during the l 970s, a peak after the I 976-77 drought and a
22 drop to lower annual levels in the 1980s. By 1983, the California DepL of Water Resources noted the
23 significant increase in ground water pumping, but added that available valley lands and the water supply to
24 irrigate them were essentially in equilibrium. (Enough water to irrigate the land without groundwater draw-
25 down effect.)A small increase occurred in 1992, in another drought period (CDWR, 1993b). (Information
26 taken from the "Scott River Fall Flows Action Plan," Scott River Watershed Coordinated Resource
27 Management Planning Committee.)
28
29 THE SCOTF RIVER WATER USE RIGHT ADJUDICATION - The Scott River Adjudication decree No.
30 30662 ofthe Superior Court ofSiskiyou County was entered on Janus' 30, 1980 in Civil Judgments Volume
3 1 45, Page 468 and recorded in Book 88 1 , Page 280 of Official Records; as amended by order dated September
32 1 1, 1980 in Civil Judgments Volume 46, Page 393 and recorded in Book 899, Page 218 ofOfficial Records.
33 (The original "Notice of Intent" was published in I 974.)
34
3S Many of Scott Valley agricultural use nghts date back to the mid- I 800s, utilizing the original ditches of the
36 time. Separate adjudications of the sever~ tributaries of the Scott River occurred at various tirnes, such as:
37 1950 - Shackleford Creek; 1958 - French Creek; 1978 - Sniktaw Creek adjudication ( IS users at 10.68 cfs.);
38 1980 - Oro Fino Creek (10 users at 21.74 cfs.); 1980 -Wildcat Creek (7 users at 7A9 cfs.); and were folded
39 into the Scott River Adjudication. Remaining adjudicated water use rights in the adjudication include 648
40 users at 874.29 cfs.
41
42 The adjudication fiuther incotporated existing agr~ments between parfiCS including: Newton~regg; South
43 Fodc Callahan Ditch; Fanner Ditch; Wolford Ditch; Etna Mill Ditch; Barker Ditch; Wright and Fletcher
44 Ditch; Friden Ditch; PereIi~ Ditch; Rock Fence and Kangaroo Lakes; East Fork of the Scott River; Sugar
45 C[~; Oro Fino; North Patte~on and Moffet Q~e~
46
47 Watennaster Seivice is being provided by the Depa[tment of Water Resources for Shackleford, Snilttaw, Oro
48 Fino, French and Wildcat tributaries As watezinaster ser"'ice is dependent upon Superior Court Order or
49 [~quest by representatives ofat least 15% ofthe ditches along effected reaches (and the service must be paid
so by effected uses,) it is unlikely that service would be introduced in the near filture.
SI
52 The "`~ter rights set forth in the decree include use to all surface waters that contribute to the flow ofthe Scott
53 River stream system, including rights to taiiwater, waste and return flow, supporting underllow and
54 inte~~nnected ground water, (a maxinium of 500 feet adjacent to the river as delineated on the State Water
55 Resources Control Board map from the confluence of Clarks Creek and the Scott River to Meamber Bridge,)
PAGE 80 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 80
1 and excluding Shackleford and French Creeks and their tributaries (previously adjudicated in 1950 and 1958
2 respectively.) Ground water outside the delineated area is not adjudicated.
)
4 The adjudication identifies 40 tributanes or stream groups that are independent in respect to non-su~lus rights
5 on other streams or stream groups. eights to divert the natural flow ofthe main stem Scott River are separated
6 into S separate sections. Non-surplus nghts within each section may be exercised independently from those in
7 ano~er section but relative to the pnority established for the section in which they lie. Post- l 914
8 appropriative rights are held to be inferior to all other rights except surplus rights. (This included 34 permits,
9 4 1 licenses and 7 stockpond certificates.)
10
1 1 kelativity ofrights within a section are established by priority classes. Should available water be insufficient
I 2 to satisfy all water use rights ofany particular class, the available water shall be prorated as a correlative right
I 3 with others ofthat class in that section.
14
I 5 Irrigation season is established "from about April l to about October 1 5 of each year." Diversion structures
16 must be constructed to allow an water in excess of the specific diversion allotment to pass to the stream
I 7 channel to allow passage of fish dunn~ irri~ati on season, but prior to about June 1 ~Those with gravel
l 8 diversion dams must breach the dam at the end of the irrigation season to allow adult fish to ascend to
I 9 spawning grounds. (There is no general limitation for consideration of fisheries during the penod between
20 June 1 and October 1 5.) Domestic and stockwatering users are entitled to .0 1 cfs at place of use during the
2 1 nonirri~ation season.
22
23 The California Depa~ent of Fish and Game was denied a claim to minimum instream flows for fisheries at
24 the time ofthe adjudication based on the principle that an appropriative water use right entailed the exercise of
25 some type of physical control over the resource. However, in the adjudication, the US Forest Service was
26 allotted quantified instream flows for the fisheries and wildlife resources, recreational, scenic and aesthetic
27 purposes by nature of its riparian rights to lands within that section. These rights are of a first priority basis,
28 correlative (equally) to other first prionty rights included in the section beginning at the USGS gaging station
29 at Fort Jones and in specified amounts on specified tributaries. (If there is insufficient water to meet all
30 pnmary riser needs, available water must be shared with others on its reach on a proportional basis.) Although
3 1 all'nghts to "surplus waters" in all section are junior to the USFS rights, the USFS instream rights have no
32 relation to non-surplus rights in other sections and non-specified independently adjudicated tributaries.
33
34 In addition, the USFS has nghts to maintain the natural unregulated lake levels at specified lakes within the
35 Klamath national Forest.
36
37 High flushing flows of 10,000-15,000 cfs measuretl at the USGS gaging station are reserved at five year
38 intervals from other impoundment or storage. This is based on historic data that indicate such a level is
39 attainable after allowances for all otlier rights during this period cstablished under the decree, including post-
40 1 9 14 impoundments. (Note: Dunng recent drought years, this level has not been attainable.)
41
42 According to the Klamatli River Basin Fisheries Task Force, duririg the period 1980-1984, instrearn flow
43 levels were not met 40% ofthc tirne. From October 1985 - September 1989, minimum flow levels were "most
44 often not being met in fall months." Summer flow levels were close to being met in 1986, but not in 1987,
45 1988or1989.
46
47 Beneficial use categories in the a~Iudication are domestic; "i~atational domestic" (dnnkm'~g, cuIin~, and
48 washing use outside by campe~~); stockwatcring; ~gation (surface or subirrigation); irrigation with incidental
49 domestic and stockwatering; munici~; industrial (1umber inill operations, flinber harr'est, road building and
so maintenance, dust control on logging i~ads); mining (including gi~vel operations); power generation from
S 1 faIling water only); storage; f~fighting; wildufelfisheries; aesthetic and scenic. Not all beneficIal uses ax~
52 present in each ofthe inde
pendent sub-sections ofthe adjudication.
53
54 Riparian land o""~ers are entitled to year-round diversion for nonconsumptive uses to include fimber
55 harvesting, road building, powe[; mining gravel plants and fish propagation so long as it does not impair
56 numbered priority rights and is in compliance with water quality standards.
PAGE 81 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 81
2 Any claimant may divert on a coITelative first priorIty basis an amount reasonably necessary for
3 stockwatering, recreational domestic, wildlife or firefighting purposes. Any riparian owner not specified in
4 the adjudication may divert a maximum of 500 gpd. per family residence or 120 gpd. per camp unit for
S domestic use.
6
7 Under a I 989 State Water Resources Control Board Order ~89-25, most of the adjudicated streams in Scott
8 Valley were declared to be `hilly appropnated" during tne period 411-I 1/30.
9
I 0 Regarding reasonable diversion and use, the decree states: t1Nothing herein contained shall be construed to
I I allot to any claimant a nght to waste water or to divert from the Scott River stream system at any time a
l 2 quantity of water reasonably necessary for his beneficial use under a reasonable method of use and a
I 3 reasonable mediod of diversion, not to permit him to exercise his right in such manner as to unreasonable
14 impair the quality ofthe natural flow.~
15
I 6 The adjudication decrees state that the Superior Court of Siskiyou County retains continuing jurisdiction of
I 7 parties to these proceedings, and of the subject matter hereof, and upon application of any patty hereto, or
1 8 successor in interests thereto, or upon its own motion or the motion of the State Water Resources Control
1 9 Board to review its decree and to change or modify the same as the interests ofjustice may require.
20
2 I BUTTE VALLEY- (Please see separate sections on Farming and Ranching for early history ofwater use.)
22
23 BU7TE VALLEY/MEISS LAKE Charles Boyes settled on Butte Creek about six miles southeast of the Ball
24 Ranch in I 870. ~ow owned by Butte Valley Irrigation Co.) Butte Creek is the largest stream in the Valley.
25 It rises to the northeast of Mt. Shasta and flows in a northwestern direction, entering the valley near the to~vn
26 of Bray. From the time of first settlement, the Creek was used for irrigation. Surplus after irrigation was
27 diverted into a lava crack. According to F. Merrill; ¶e(D]isputes in the division ofwater caused much litigation,
28 out ofwhich were established some ofthe most impo~nt rules ofour Califomia Water Law.~'
29
30 Around 1940, Emie Bubb, Art Macken, Fat & Muriel Long acquired the Meiss Ranch in Butte Valley. The
3 1 partnership built a dike to reclaim land from the west side of Meiss [~e and excavated drain ditches to
32 develop additional grain land. The Longs sold their interest to Bubb and Macken in I 943.
33
34 in 1944, James Stevenson bought the Meiss Ranch in Butte Valley. In the same year, the old lake bed
35 flocoled, so only a few acres of grain were planted. As a result of the flooding, Stevenson made major
36 improvements to the dike. The first imgation well, an artesian well, was dug in 1944. The pumps for
37 drainage puiposes wett operated either by gas ordiesel engines before electricity finally reached the ares The
38 arrival ofelectricity allowed for rapid development ofthe Meiss Ranch as well as other ranches in Macdoel.
39
40 A dike was conStRicted across Meiss ~e allowing the westerly portion of the ai~a to be ~~claimed for
4 1 f~nuing and cerea1~~ins. Fanning ofthis ~on was accomplished by diverting Mi£skgrave, Harris and Ikes
42 a~cks out onto the fields in the wit'ter months to build soil moistiu~. Water was then evacuated into Meiss
43 Lake through the use of lift pumps. As soon as the soils were dry enough to work, the ground was plantc~
44 Late spring and summer rains w~ depended upon to make the crop. The technique is called partial irrigation
4S and is used thmu~out the Kiamath Bas~ After h&ves~. cattle We[t t~irned into the area to remove remaining
46 stubble. ~it Novick, WIldhfe Habitat Supervisor II, Under the Supervision of Don Koch, Wildlife
47 Managcment Supervisor Region [; Butte Valley Wildlife Area Mana~ment Plan: California Department of
48 Fish and Game; July, 1992 at 19 and 21.)
49
50 In 1945, Butt Valley irrigation District ~V[D) was forced to sell 18,000 acres ofland to pay offthe bond of
51 1923. This was-due to depletion offlinds required for the drilling ofaddidonal wells needed to flimish water
52 to land ownets;
(Letter ofOct~ 9, 1992, Theodore Risner, Water Master; BVID)
53
54 In 1947, the Butte Valley [rrigation District entered into a joint tenancy agreement with the current owner of
55 the Meiss Ranch, James Stevenson. The agreement allowed the District and Stevenson to deposit water into
56 Meiss Lake and later withdraw it. The District has never activated its right due to the high cost of electrical
PAGE 82 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 82
I power and the low quality ofthe water. (Butte Valley' \\`ildlife Area and its predecessors have diverted lake
2 ~vater onto its croplands and has pumped water into the Kiamath under the agreement.)
4 In 1947, James Stevenson purchased 1,100 acres of lake bed from Liskey, plus 80 acres from the State
5 bringing the acreage of the Meiss kanch to I 3,200 acres. Stevenson constructed the first dams to impound
6 Juanita Lake (named after his wife,) and located no~~ on U.S. Forest Service Land. ~ie water was used to
7 irrigate the meadows on the west side ofthe ranch. ~ovick notes that a subsequent owner, Shasta Cattle Co..
8 "failed to maintain the dikes on the lake properly and this gave the USFS the opportunity to acquire water
9 rights to the lake.") (BVWA Plan at 13 and 19.)
10
I I In the I 950s, the water table in Butte Valley' dropped below the depth of existing wells of the Butte Vallev
I 2 Irrigation District (BV[D) so that they had to deepen the wells to supply water to landowners. It has been
1 3 apparent that the water table has dropped each year since 1923. (Letter ofOct. 9, 1992, BVID)
14
1 5 In I 964, a major flooding event occurred and Meiss Lake ~reflooded' more than I 0,500 acres of its former
I 6 lake bed and adjacent farms. Butte Valley ~ declared a disaster area.
17
I 8 In l 965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a drainage canal through Sam~s Neck to Rock Creek
I 9 and ultimately the Klamath River. The canal was designed to deliver 200 cfs. and was constructed in 2
20 sections. The first section oriomates in the northwestem comer of Meiss Lake and gravity flows in the same
21 direction for 3.85 miles to a pumping station. ~iree low-lift pumps (250 hp each), lift the water 21 feet into
22 an elevated canal to then gravity flow onto Rock Creek and the Klatnath River. The section of elevated canal
23 is about four miles long. The regulation of waters in Meiss Lake via the pumping station has precluded
24 inundation and damaoe to adjacent crop lands since its construction. Excess ~vaters are pumped from ~
25 toApril.
26
27 From 1968-1988, 97,265 acre feet ofwater were pumped at a cost of5320,046. No waters were pumped in
28 1981, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. In a normal year, an average of4,632 acre feet ofwater is
29 pumped into the Klamath. The greatest amount was 14,582 acre feet in 1972.
30
3 1 The Macdoel Ditch is a drainaoe cana I leaving Meiss Lake on its east side. ~fl~is .8 mile canal can provide
32 Meiss Lake water to the adjacent US Forest Service Butte Valley National Grasslands by gravity flow or low-
33 lift pumping. (BVWA Plan at 7, 12, 13 and 21.)
34
35 During the 1976-77 drought, the Butte Valley irrigation District (BVID) had to deepen wells a second time
36 due to the rapid lowering ofthe water table. (Letter ofOct. 9, 1992, BVID)
37
38 By 1976, the irrigated acreage in Butte Valley had increased from 12,000 acres as of 1954 to 27,500 acres in
39 1976. This was due to the availability of electricity for pumps and the development of ground water for
40 irngation. (BVWA Plan at 22.)
41
42 In 1980-8 1 , the water table in Butte Valley dropped again causing water shortage. The Butte Valley Irrigation
43 District (BVID) installed underground pipes to save water from e~~~tion and subbage. otter of O~ 9,
44 19921BVID)
45
46 Butte Valley Irrigation District (BVID) wells are at a depth of 8O~l,5OO feeL Approximately half of die 28
47 wells go dry or suige with very little water in dry years. From 1983-1992, the water table has dropped 16 fcet~
48 The drop has been apparent at all levels ofthe three tables involved~ (Letter ofOcL 9, 1992, BVID)
49
so In 1991, the Butte Valley Wildlife Area was acquired in two phases by the Wildlife Conser~tion Board with
5 1 : filnds from Dcpa[tnlent ofWildlife Restoration Funds and Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. Phase
52 1 - 7,920 acres.:was recorded in January; and Phase II - 5,280 acres was recorded in July. Federal lunds from
53 the Pitttnan-Robertson program (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act) and California I)eparttnent of Fish
54 and Game's (DFG) flinds are used on a 75%-25% basis to run the refuge.
55
PAGE 83 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 83
I In addition1 the DFG cooperatively manages 80 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in the northw:
2 comer and I 50 acres of UPS. Forest Service Land adjacent to Meiss Lake Road.
4 Meiss Lake typically goes d~ eves 15-20 years and was d~ in 1955, 1965, 1931, 1987, 1988, 1990 l9~i
5 1992. (BVWA Plan at 1 and 12.)
6
7 Along the eastern boundary of the Butte Valley Wildlife Area is die 18,425 acre Butte Valley NatioF.~i
8 Grasslands, managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These lands are the lands that were originally acquired ~v
9 the federal government under the Bankhea&Jones Farm Tenant Act. They were forrnally designated
10 National Grasslands in 1991. (BVWA Plan at 23.)
Il
l 2 The Negative Declaration ~D) and Butte Valley Wildlife Area Plan, page 1 8, states that the wetlands areas ~:
I 3 BVWA are extensive: BVWA occupies approximately 14 percent of Butte Valley (lands below the 4.28O-f~
14 elevation contour). Approximately 3,000 acre-feet of ground water is pumped from wells 1, 2 3 and 7A.
I 5 Less water is pumped in wet years and more (4,000-5,000 acre-feet) in drought years. This water is used :~
16 irrigate food and nesting cover crops and to maintain 500600 acres of wetlands~ increased to 1 .000- l ,2C~
17 acres ofwetlands for faIl migrating birds.
18
19 According to page 62 of the ND and Plan, under the next phase of the proposed Plan: `Total wetland acre~
20 would be more than 9,325 acres (includes 1,200 acres of Bune Valley National Grasslands...'
21
22 Page 5~ of the ND and Plan indicates that the wetlands area of die BVWA is very shallow: 1'Mei&s Lake.
23 managed reservoir, has a m&\imum depth of six feet. elevations range from 4,228 to 4,234 feet. L\~1O5t of &
24 lake bottom is at an elevation of41230 feeL The maximum level for Meiss Lake is managed at 4,234 teet...
25
26 According to the NG and Plan, page 9, "A Cemented hardpan exists beneath most soils especially in the ~
27 basin. This han:lpan is near the surface in fields 5A, SB, and SC, pond 7A and in Meiss Lake. This hardp~
28 ranges from six inches to several feet bencath the soil surface...Since these soils formed in a closed bas:
29 where drainage and petmeability are poor, salt and alkali accumulation can become a problem."
30
3 1 The hardpan and soil tppe at BVWA/Meiss Lake create a large shallow impermeable basin sui:~ject to hi~
32 evaporation rates. (111e NG and Plan, page 1 1 states that: "No pan evaporation data for Butte Vallev ~
33 available but is estimated to be 48 inches per year..."
34
35 The Butte Valley Wildlife Area (BVWA) Management Plan describes three basalt aquifers in this volcari~~
36 valley. The area is riddled with fissures and faults. At least two hydrologic studies have been done thai
37 provide differing infonnation about these aquifers
38 (Dysert, personal communicauqn.) The BVWA Plan states:
39
40 The Lake Deposits Aquifer (LD) t~nges in depth from O~125 feet below the surface. [t is ~
41 hig~~er in sodium bicarbonate, alkalinity and hydrogen suifide~than the other aquif~. Thc W aquifer c~
42 occur both above and below the Butte Valley Basalt Aquifer (13VB), but is thoug~it to occur above tile de~
43 High Cascades Volcanics (HCV) aquifers
44
45 The BVB aquifer is higher in dissolved solids and electncal conductivity than the HCV aquifer. The depth of
46 the BVB aquifer is ~rn ~1 10 feet and is the most ~uctive aqw'fer, althou~ it is found only to the solid'
47 and east side of Meiss Lake. (13VID ~~eIIs and at leasi two BVWA kri~Ofl welIS pump ~riifl&ii~ from ~
48 *BVB aquifer.) Historically, Butte C[~ek has been divested to flow unde~~i~und tt~roug~~ porous lava rocks ~
49 recharge the BVJ3 aquifer. rood flows are &`vC[t~d into Diy and Cedar Lees.)
so
SI The HCV aquifer is generally deeper than the other aquifers (from 47~l,317 fect~) Springs from the HCV
52 provide perenn.ial flows for ether, MusI~grave, Harris and Ikes ~ Watch quality from the HCV aquif~~
53 has been termed "excellent," although high in calcium~agnesium bicarbonate. Several irrigation wells
54 the conti~versial deep well at 7A ar~ thought to clt~w from the HCV aquifers
55
PAGE 84 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 84
1 GRASS LAKE In the early 1900s, Abner ~Veed established the old Grass Lake Hotel. ~ie lake was full of
2 water and celebrities often visited. Then a man named James Murphy experimentally inserted dynamite into
) the lake bottom and blew a hole in the false bedrock to the aquifer. The lake dried up and became ~ra55 The
4 hotel was abandoned.
S
6 Grass Lake is a 200 acre grass and sedge covered flat. lames Sullivan a long time employee of the Weed
7 Lumber Co. (later International Paper Co.,) engineered a semi-circular dike where the two ends butt up against
8 wooded land that juts into the shoreline. \Vlien the dike is cut, water rushes in and disappears down the
9 drainage hole. ft is not known to where the water travels.
10
I 1 TULE LAKUUPPER KLAAfAT!f BASIN-
12
1 3 THE KLAMATH PROJECT- The Klamath Project serves Klamath County, Oregon; and Siskiyou and Modoc
14 Counties in California. It was one ofthe first reclamation prqjects, draining and reclaiming lakebed lands of
I 5 Lower Klamath and Tule lakes and developing water supplies from the Klamath and Lost Rivers to irritate
16 lands. ~ie Project was authonzed in 1905, construction began in 1906, and water was first made available in
I 7 1 907. The principal project storage facilities are Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon (735,000 acre-feet) and Clear
I 8 Lake Reservoir on the Lost River in California (526,000 acre-feet.) The project area includes 233,625 acres of
l 9 irrigable lands, of which 204,492 acres were irrigated by the project in I 979. Approximately I 00,000 of this
20 acreage lies in California. mere are five major pumping plants with power input ranging from 450-3,650 hp.
2 1 and capacities from 60 to 300 cfs. , and 40 pumping plants of less than I ,000 hp. There are 1 8 canals with a
22 total length of 185 miles and diversion capacities ranging from 35 to 1,150 cfs. Laterals total 516 miles and
23 drains 728 miles. (U.S. Government printing Office map ofthe Klamath Project, 1995-784-380.)
24
25 The Klamath Basin Compact addresses interstate water-sharing matters in the Upper Klamath kiver and Lost
26 River basins. Negotiated by the states of Oregon and California, approved by their respective Legislatures,
27 and consented to by the U.S. Congress in 1957,. the compact is to (I) facilitate orderly development and use of
28 water, and (2) turther cooperation be~veen the states in the equitable sharing ofwater resources. The Compact
29 that identifies domestic, irritation and recreational uses as the only beneficial uses of water in the Upper
30 Klamath Basin and establishes a prionty of use in that order. (Fisheries and wildlife uses are included under
3 1 "recreational use.e~) These uses and priorities were incorporated into the Federal Power Commission's license
32 for both Big Bend and Iron Gate dams. In the Iron Gate license (expires March 1, 2006,) it flirther states:
33 e~water use at Iron Gate and the river below are subject to irrigation needs of Shasta Valley..." The KIarnath
34 Basin Compact is administered by the Klamath River Compact Commission. (See also the Califbrnia Water
35 Plan Update Bulletin l60-93~
36
37 According to a July, 1995 Memorandum from the Office of the Regional Solicitor of the U.S. Department of
38 Interior, Pacific Southwest Region, "rights" ofthe Klamath Project Water Users were explained as follows:
39
40 "The Klamath Project water users obtain their supply ofwater for irrigation purposes from the project facilities
4 1 pursuant to various contracts witli Reclamation entered.into putsuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Star
42 390, 43 U.S.C. Sections 372 et seq.. as amended and supplemented. The contracts are between Reclamation
43 and a water district or Reclamation and an individual water user. These contracts provide, ir~ general, that the
44 water user is to i~ceIve enough water to satis~ the beneficial use for the im'gation of a specified acreage.
45 Certain ofthe contracts specie the beneficial use amounts on a per acre bask.
46
47 "mc underlying water rights for the pr~ect, upon which the supply stated in each of the contracts discussed
48 above depends, were obtained by Reclamation in accordance with state law, in 1905, when Reclamation filed
49 a notice of intent to appropriate all of the available water in the Klamath River and Lost River and their
50 tributaries in Oregon. Similar filings were made for the waters originating in Califomia, within the Lost River
5 1 . and Clear Lake drainages. Subsequent to these filings, Reclamation constructed project facilities through
52 which water k:~delivered
to the project water users. The project's 1905 water rights are junior to the r~erved
53 water rights ofthe tribes but senior to the reserved water rights ofthe retuges..."
54
55 According to the Klamath Project Operation Plan Draft Technical Memorandum on Agriculture and Reftige
56 Water use dated Nov. 1, l995,~Reclamation has three types of contracts:
PAGE 85 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February i996
2 `~CLASS A~ or 9(d) repayment contracts These contracts were used for the eAU ~naI and Tulelake areas of
3 the project, which were, for the most part, homesteaded under Reclamation In 1994, there were 166,097
4 acres (1 35,564 acres harvested) under "Class A' contracts; 1993 166,097 acres ( I 34,706 acres harvested);
S and 1992, a drought year, 166,222 acres ( 12 1,070 harvested).
6
7 *CLASS B1' or Warren Act Contracts The Warren Act grants seconday rights of use to users above the
8 gravity system/or users not covered under 9(d) repayment contracts. In 1994, there were 65,689 acres (S9,729
9 acres harvested) under uClass Bt~ contracts; 1993 65,750 acres (60, 1 66 acres harvested); and 1992, a drought
10 year, 65,750 acres (58,408 harvested).
11
12 "CLASS C" These are rental contracts that allow water to be sold to individual fanners on an uif and when
I 3 available" status. Klamath Irrigation District, Tulelake lrngation Distnct, and Reclamation have the ability to
14 enter into temporary water rental contracts. In 1994, there were 2,043 acres (1,648 acres harvested) under
I 5 "Class B' contracts; I 993 1 887 acres ( 1,773 acres harvested); and 1992, a drought year1 947 acres (756
I 6 harvested).
17
I 8 (For summary of Water Users and Contract Water Duty, see Table 1.)
19
20 Obligations of the Kiamath Project to water users were explained in the July, 1995 Memorandum from the
2 1 Office ofthe Regional Solicitor ofthe U.S. Departtnent of Interior, Pacific Southwest Region, were explained
22 as follows:
23
24 as follows:
25
26 "Reclamation has an obligation to deliver water to the project water uses in accordance with the project water
27 rights and the contracts be~veen Reclamation and the water user (which may be through a water district)
28 sui~ject to the availability ofwater. Reclamation must protect the rights ofthe users of project water, see Filing
29 ofClaims for Water Rights in General Stream Adjudications, M-36966, 97 l.D. 2 1 (July 6, 1989), and cannot
30 `ignore...the obligations that necessarily devolve upon it from having mere title to water nghts for the (project],
3 1 when the beneficial ownership of these water rights resides elsewhere.~ Nevada v. United States. 463 U.S. at
32 127. Water would not be available, for example, due to drought, a need to forego diversions to satis~ prior
33 exiting rights, or compliance with other federal laws such as the Endangered Species AcL Water lawfiilly
34 stored in the project's reservoirs can be used for domestic and irrigation purposes to the extent the water is
35 applied to beneficial use Within the projeCL Reclamation cannot stote or divert water for p[~)ject purposes that
36 is needed to satis~ prior existing rjg~ts~u
37 A letter dated Nov. 22, 1995, firm DC Cuir & Somach, Attorney at Law, to Mike Ryan, Area Manager of the
38 Bureau ofReclamation, clarifies:
39
40 "Under the agreements between PP&L [Pacificotp] and Reclamation, PP&L opc[~tcs Link River Darn, cxccpt
41 that it may not interfere with water needed for irrigation. The FBRC ~edc~al Ene(gy Regulatory
42 Conimission] license has absoltttely no effect on the operational con~1 [CS&V~ to ptotect I[Tigatio~
43 supplies...PP&L's obligations ate PP&L's obligations. PP&L is iwt obligated to use someone else's water to
44 meet any pai~cular flow regirne at any point in the system."
45
46 "Further, as you know, PP&L~s contracts with the United States make it clear that PP&L is not cutitied to use
47 water ifwater is needed for irrigation. The licenses frog FERC and SWRCB (State Water Resources Control
a[~J expressly state, ~oteover, that PP&L is not required to release mote water than it has rights to for
48 Bo
49 power generation.:
50
51 KBY FAClLm~Es ofthe Kiamath P[~ject include:
52
53 UPPER KLAMATh LAKE (regulated ftom Link River Dam has an actIve capacity of465,O()() acre~f~
54
PAGE 86 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehen&ive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 86
1 GERBER DAM AND ~ES~~VO[R: on Miller Creek in Oregon, provides storage for irriation and reduces
2 flow into the reclaimed portions ofTule Lake and the restricted sump areas in the Tule Lake National \Vildlife
) Refuge. The reservoir has an active storage capacity of94,OOO acre-feet
4
S CLEAR LAKE DAM AND RESERVOIR: on Lost River in California, provides storage for irrigation and
6 reduces flow into the reclaimed portion ofTule Lake and the restricted sump areas in the Tule Lake National
7 Wildlife Refuge. The reservoir has an active storage capacity of 5 1 3,000 acre-feet and a firm minimum
S annual yield of I 2,000 acre-feet
9
10 MALONE DIVERS[ON DAM: on Lost River, diverts water to serve lands in the Langell Valley in Oregon
I I and has a diversion capacity of220 cfs.
12
13 LOST RIVER DIVERS[ON DAM: on Lost River, diverts excess water to the Klamath River through the Lost
14 River Diversion Channel and thereby controls downstreain flow in Lost River to control or restrict flooding on
15 the reclaimed portions ofTule Lake and to regulate sumps in the Tule Lake National \Vildlife Reftioe. It has a
16 diversion capacity of3,OOO cfs
`7
l S LOST RIVER DIVERSION CHANNEL: extends from Lost River Dam and
19 carries excess water to the Klamath River. It also supplies additional irrigation water from the Klamath River
20 by reverse flow to serve the reclaimed lands ofTule Lake
21
22 ANDERSON~ROSE DAM: on the Lost River, diverts water to serve the reclaimed lands ofTule Lake and has
23 a diversion capacity of8OO cfs. to lands within the Tulelake Irri~ation District.
24
25 MILLER DIVERSION DAM: on MillerCreek below Gerber Dam, diverts water to serve the lands in Langell
26 Valtey and has a diversion capacity of 190 cfs.
27
28 STATION 48+00 TURNOUT: diverts Lost River and Klamath River water into Lost River below the Lost
29 River Dam has a tumout capacity of 500 cfs. Water ordered by Tulelake Irrigation District is delivered by
30 Reclamation at this point.
31
32 MILLER HILL PUMPING PLANT: diverts Lost River and/or Klamath River water into Miller Hill and has a
33 capacity of lOS cfs.
34
35 PUMPING PLANT D: has a capacity of388 cfs. and TULE LAKE TUNNEL is a concrete lined tunnel, 6,600
36 ~ in length and with a capacity of250 cfs.. These divert water from Tule Lake into P Canal, which conveys
37 drainage water from Tule Lake's restricted sumps to Lower Klamath Lake.
38
39 KIAMATH STRAITh DRAIN PUMPING PLANTS E & E-E and F & F-F: were constructed to pump
40 drainage water collected in the straits di~in from Lower Klamath National Wildlife Reflige and other ~gated
4 l land back into the Kllamath River. Both E & E-E and F & F-F have a pumping capacity of6OO cfs. each
42
43 KEYCANALS ofthe Klamath Prqject include:
44
45 EAST CANAU AT MALONE DIVERSION - conveys water from Malone, east of the dive~ion dam. The
46 canal is 2 miles long, with a capacity of3O cfs.
47
48 WEST CANAL AT MALONE DIVERSION - conveys water from Malone Diversion Dam to D~ Lake. The
49 canal is 12.1 miles long, with a capacity of 190 cfs.
so
S 1 NORTh CANAL AT MILLER DIVERSION - conveys water firm Miller Diversion Dam to Dry Lake. The
52 canal is 14A miles long, with a capacity of 190 cfs.
53
54 LOST RIVER D[VERSION CHANNEL - runs from the Lost River Diversion Dam to the Klamath River and
55 ca[Ties water to the Kiamath or additional Klamath River water for irTigation. It is about 8 miles long, with a
56 channel capacity of3,000 cfs.
PAGE 87 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 87
2 NORTH CANAL from KLAMTH RIVER runs from the Kiamath River to the Northeast comr of Lov r
3 Klamath Lake. It Is 12 miles long and has a capacity of2OO cfs.
4
5 ADY CANAL conveys water from the Kiamath River to the Kiamath Drainage District and Lower KIairi~
6 Lake. It is 5 miles long and has a capacity of 400 cfs. Ady canal is a measunng point for reftige ~
7 Agriculture provides all water nceds for the refuges.
S
9 KLAMATH STRAITS DRAIN CANAL capacity 600 cfs.
10
1 1 *`A" CANAL from UPPER KLAMATH LAKE conveys water from Upper Kiamath Lake into the ProjecL ~
I 2 is 8.7 miles long and has a capacity of I I 50 cfs. (The ~A Canal splits into the B' and ~C Canal.)
13
I 4 ~ CANAL conveys water from A~ Canal to Olene Oregon; is 4. 1 miles long with 290 cfs. capacity
15
16 e~Ct CANAL conveys water~from At' Canal to Merrill, Oregon; is 13.5 miles long with 330 cfs. capaci~-.
17 There is also a teCh to tG Canal pf.9 miles with 400 cfs capacity.
18
I 9 tIl)E CANAL conveys irrigation water from ~ and ~ Canals to .1 Canal. It is 28.6 miles lona with a `C~)
20 cfs capacity.
21
22 `~E~' CANAL runs east along the Lost River; is 10.5 miles long, with a capacity of35 cfs.
23
24 "F" CANAL runs east and west on the south side of Lost River; is I l .2 miles long, with a 90 cfs. capacity.
25
26 ~ CANAL located near Lost River Diversion at "C-Ge' Canal to Merrill; is 8.5 miles long, with a capaciL~.
27 of400cfs.
28
29 ``J'' CANAL runs from Anderson Rose Diversion Dam to vicinity of Newell; is 23.4 miles lono W&~1
30 capacity ofSOO cfs.
31
32 ~ CANAL located near Newell, east ofTule Lake sump; is 6.5 miles long, with capacity of 100 cfs.
34 "N" CANAL located e~t ofTulelake sump; is 26.5 miles long, with capacity of3OO cfs.
35
36 eep~e CANAL conveys water from Pumping Plant IlDee tO lower south and east portions of ILower Kiamaim
37 Lake; is 1.8 miles lone with capacity of2OO cfs.
38
39 "P-I" CANAL conveys water from Pumping Plant ~`D" to east~and norther parts ofLower Klamath Lake; is 9
40 miles long, with 250 cfs. capacity.
41
42 "R" and "Q" CANALS located in south pottion of Tule Lake Sump, 3.9 and 3.2 miles long, respecuve[:4;
43. capacity 130 and 76 cfs.
44
45 ~ in the Upper Kiamath BasIn includes "flowline conveyari~
46 capacities" to the Project and the Klamath River. The Link River components are actually comiected to ~
47 Klamath Prqject. The hydroelectric system includes*:
48
49 LINK RIVER~EAST SIDE HYDROELECIRIC DEVELOPMENT (MD) fcc 975 c~, rese~oir capaci~'
50 873,O()() acte fee;~t,with activ
e storage capacity (amount available for release to downstream users) of 465,()O(}
51
52 LINK RIVER-WEST SIDE HI) fcc 250 cfs.
53
54 KENO DAM was built to regulate the flow~ofthe Klamath River and maintain Lake Ewaun~ It has a to~
55 reservoir capacity of l 8,500 acre-feet.
PAGE 88 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 88
1 J.C. BOYLE HD was built to store and divert water for its powerhouse [t has diversion or fcc of2,500 cfs.
2 reservoir capacity of3377 acre-feet, with active storage capaci~ of 1,507 acre feet
4 coPco NO. I HD was built to store and divert water for its po~erhouse. It has diversion or fcc of 3,000
S cfs., reservoir capacity of 17,774 acre-feet, with active storaoe ca~~c~ty of 4,802 acre feet
6
7 cOPcO NO. 2 HD was built to store and divert water for its powerhouse. It has diversion or fcc of 3,000
S cfs.
9
10 FALL CREEK HD was built to store and divert water for its powerhouse. It has diversion or fcc ofSO cfs.
11
12 IRON GATE HD was built to regulate the flow ofthe Klamath River and divert water for its powerhouse. It
I 3 has a diversion or fcc of I 735 cfs., reservoir capacity of 58,000 acre-feet, with active storaoe c a~acity of
14 7,364 acre-feet.
15
16 An additional 7.4 miles of conveyance associated ~vit1i HD has fcc~s ranoi ng from 50 cfs. to 3,000 cfs.
17
18 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE:
19
20 According to the Klamath Project Operation Plan Draft Technical Memorandum on Agriculture and Refuge
2 l Water use dated Nov. 1 , I 995,
22 During the past 10 years, the estimated water irrigation demand for agriculture and refuges, based on crop
23 consumption needs through evapoti~uispiration, evaporation, minus available precipitation* and the estimated
24 "net use" or difference be~veen total inflow and outflow* * was:
25
26 AGRICUL~FURE+ R~FUGB* TOT~~* _________
27
28 1994 415,899 87,192 50B,091 S~9~472
29 1993***3G5,078 83,330 448,408 89~745
30 1992 418~484 80,260 498~744 49~,482
31 1991 404,740 8O,2~O 485,000 524,061
32 1990 407,201 79,492 486,693 483,486
33 1989***417,163 81,389 498,552 345,065
34 1988 393,590 73,610 467,200 509,483
35 1987 394,413 78,420 472,833 505,959
36 1986*+*393,081 78,420 471,501 268,873
37 1985***359,908 78,420 438,320 246,842
38
39 Ave. 396,956 80,079 477~O34 S14,824
40 Max. 418,484 87,192 503,091 S71,525
41 Mm. 3S9,908 73,610 438,320 279,467
42
43
44 Avg. 396,956 80,079 477,034 S 14,824
45 Max. 418,484 87,192 503,091 571,525
46 Mm. 359,908 73,610 438,320 279,467
47
48 ~ Years removed from calculation of average due to greater than average rain~ll or lack of complete
49 records.
50
5 1 NOTh: On the average, estimated net water use diff~ from the estimated water demand by less than six
52 *; percent. The avenge overall system efficiency based on the six years ofrecord is 90 per~nL This indicates a
53 very efficient~use of water. This high level of efficiency may be due to the interconnected nature of the
54 various delivery and di~inage systems. When the water is reused, the overall efficiency increases. The report
55 anticipates that the 1994 figures on demand should meet the irrigation requirement for approximately 194,071
56 acres of crops, assuming a crop mix similar to that of 1994 and the water requirements for approximately
57 10,009 and 17,542 acres ofpermanent and seasonal marshes respectively.
PAGE 89 Show Image
Siskiyou CO~~ty Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februa~ 1996 page 89
2 ~e repo~ also noted that the downside" of the system's apparent excellent efflciency is that their is a
3 corresponding reduction in rctum flows, which make up a portion of the water supply for do~vnstrearn water
4 users It is assumed that downstream users must, then, increase diversions from their primary sources in order
5 to meet needs. An additional concern is the potential impact on water quality, particularly in the salt balance
6 of return flows. [It should be noted tha~ prior to the project while enormous areas of land were still in
7 marshland, the amount ofwater consumed" by marsh vegetation transpiration and evaporation from exposure
8 of a wide (shallow) `vater surface area was also substantIal, if not c'reater
~ than that `consumed' by current
9 agncultural use.]
10
1 1 TULELAKE- By 1 93 l there was still no reliable local source of good drinking water. The Kalina store in
1 2 Malin made water available to anyone who came to town. In addition Southern Pacific railroad parked tank
I 3 cars on the sidings in Tulelake where people filled buckets and 55 gallon steel drums to bring water to their
14 homes.
IS
16 In 1938, Tulelake began its quest for good water. The water in the area had a high iron content, sulfurous odor
I 7 and was loaded with methane gas. The water was so volatile1 it could be ignited and visitors were warned not
I 8 to smoke in bathrooms. (One such explosion had blown off a bathroom door and singed the occupant.) Help
I 9 was denied from the Bureau of Reclamation.
20
21 Fund raisers were held and a test well was sunk in 1938 to a level of 1,900 feet without hitting bedrock. A
22 bond issue was passed after the ciy recorded its map with the State of California, and by l 94 1 , flie well had
23 been deepened to 2,200 feet. ~e quality soon deteriorated.
24
25 By 1950, the city1s population was 1,500. A fire nearly depleted the deep wells water supply. In 195 1, the
26 well was sunk to 2,254, but quality again deteriorated. In 1953, a new well was sunk to a level of3,000 feet.
27 The well was good and its delivery system delivers potable water to the city and much of the northern and
28 central basin.
29
30 OF SPECIAL NOTE During the draining of Tule Lake in 1907, the rain and snow was unusually heavy.
3 1 Farrn land on the north shore was flooded. Within a t'vo week period, local residents wer surprised to note a
32 two foot drop in the lake. William Dalton and J. Frank Adams discovered water flowing into several openings
33 in the lava near Scorpion Point on the west side of Coppock Bay. They cleared away debris and pried open
34 rocks to increase the flow. They later teported that a body of water measuring 200 second feet was rushing
35 down into an underground gorge. Lake waters had not been high enough to reach the open space for years
36 and as waters went down, the whirlpool would disappear unless cut lower.
37
38 The Reclamation Service turned down an offer by local residents to work on the opening, embarking on its
39 own experiments in 1908. They began to blast a series oftrenches a vertical holes in the lava rock The flow
40 ofwater into the excavated holes increased slightly, but did not duplicate the tate ofthe year before. It fmally
4 1 tape~~ off in 1909 as the lake level dropped. In 1915 the Klatnath Project brought in several pumps to help
42 speed the dx~inage, but the amount of water moved into the lava bees was insignificant and the plan was
43 abandoned. The most effective sU~tegy at that point was diverting the Lost River and allowing the water of
44 Tule Lake to evaporate.
45
46
47
48 THE EFFICIENCY OF AGRICULTURAL WA'I'ER USE:
49
so A CDWR study in 1958 ofagricultural water use in both the Shasta and Scott VaIIeys~found an average of 6.3
S 1 acre feet of~water was applied per acre, with an overall consumptive water use of only 2.28 feet per acre,
52 creating an overall irrigation efficiency of 36%. A report of data collected by the U.S. Soil Conservation
S3 Service in a 1976 study of a major ditch in Scott Valley, showed delivery was reduced 2 1-39% as a result of
54 ~
PAGE 90 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resourne Management Plan
February 1996 page 90
1 Jf}'DROLOGJC C}'CLE -
3 [~e following info~ation was taken from the R~n~eland \Vatershed Pro~r~ni F3ct Sheet No. 31 Sept.1995
4 u*c. Cooperative Extension and U.S.D.A. Soil Conser"ation Se~ice.]
S
6 ~e hydrologic cycle represents the circulation of Earth~s waters from ocean to atmosphere to land and back
7 to ocean. The cycle can be thought ofas a huge water pump that is powered by solar radiation (energy from
8 the sun) and by gravity. The hydrologic cycle is a global system, and every molecule of water on Earth is a
9 partofthccyclc...'
10
l I `~e sun provides the energy to transfer water from oceans, lakes rivers `vetlands bare soil and vegetation to
I 2 the a~osphere as a water vapor (oceans, nvers, etc., are conipartments of the cycle, the transfer of water from
I 3 one compartment to another occurs due to process.) Transfer of water from oceans, lakes, rivers, wetlands,
14 bare soil, and plant surfaces to the atmosphere is called evaporation (a process). ~e transfer of soil water
I 5 through living plants to the atmosphere is called transpiration. The processes ofevaporation and transpiration
1 6 are referred to together as evapotranspiration."
17
I 8 " Due to gravity, water vapor in the atmosphere falls to Earth as precipitation. Rain and snow are the t'vo
19 dominant fonns of precipitation. For this discussion we will only consider rainfall...Before reaching the
20 Earth's surface, most rainfall is caught by vegetation (trees, grass, litter, etc.). ~is catching ofrainfall is called
2 1 interception. Most intercepted rainfall drips to the soil surface (trough fall) or runs down the plant to the soil
22 surface (stem flow). A portion of intercepted rainfall is evaporated back into the atmosphere. That rainfi~l1
23 which reaches the soil surface is referred to as net rainfall."
24
25 "Once rainfall reaches the soil surface, a portion passes across the soil surface and enters the soil profile. The
26 process of rainfall crossing ~he soil surface is known as infiltration. Rainfall that is not infiltrated runs down
27 slope as overland flow.
28 Rainfall carried as overland flow may infiltrate fii~er down slope, or it may enter a stream channel.
29 Infiltrated rainfall is initially stored in the soil profile as soil moisture."
30
3 1 As the arnount of water in the soil (soil moisture content) increases ~ a stonn soil water may move
32 vertically to ground water aquifers due to percolation or laterally to stream channels as. lateral subsurface flow.
33 Ground water may enter streams, lakes, oceans, or it may be stored for long periods in aquifers. Not all soil
34 water will be lost to percolation or lateral subsurface flow. Soils can hold a certain amount of water against
35 gravity. Soil water held against gravity is eventually lose as evapo-transpiration. It is the ability ofthe soil to
36 hold water against gravity which makes plant life possible."
37
38 "Rainfall which enters a stream channel Icecomes stream flow. Stream flow can be attributed to either storm
39 flow or base flow. During, as well as shortly after a stomi event, stream flow is dominated by storm flow
40 resulting from overland flow and late~l subsurface flow. Between rainfall events, stream flow is dominated
4 1 by base flow resulting from ground water discharge. Runoff is that portion of rainfall that leaves a land area
42 as stream flow. Water yield is the sum of stream flow and ground water discharge from a contributing land
43 ares"
44
45 [The following information is taken from tiie Draft Califomia Water Plan Update (DCWPU), pp. 178-194, and
46 local U.C. Extension Farm Advisor Steve~ Orloffs presentation to the Scott River Watershed Coordinated
47 Resource Management Planning Group.]
48
49 (DCWPU) "The consumptive use of water by crops is synonymous with the term evapotranspiration.
so Consumptive use is expressed as a volume ofwater per unit area, annual acre-feet per acre. [t is a measure of
S 1 the water transpired by plants, retained by plant tissue and evaporated from adjacent soil surface over a
52 specific period of time. ET varies ttiroughout the year depending on solar radiation, humidity, temperature,
53 wind and stage of plant growth. For example, as a plant grows, ET increases until the crop reaches maturity.
54 The evaporation component of ET is greatest when the plant is small and does not shade the soil surface.
55 Further, the relationship between evaporation and transpiration is a dynamic one. When evaporation
56 increases, transpiration decreases. Evapotranspiration, ET, is the largest element in Califomia's hydrologic
PAGE 91 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 91
l balance including the ET in forests, natural veetation arulture and landcapinCrop ETA \V
2 (Evapotranspiration of Applied Water) represents less than I S percent of the total evapotranspiration and
3 evaporation in the State...'
4
5 "Agncultural water efficiency (SAE or Seasonal Application Emciency] has nonnally been defined as
6 irrigation efficiency calculated by dividing the ETAW plus the leaching requirement by the applied water.
7 Another measure ofagncultural water use efficiency is the agricultural production per unit of water."
8
9 SAE = FlAW + [~R
10 AW
l I (Note: LR is any water requirement for the leaching of salts.)
12
13 `tie decision by a fanner to bring a particular piece of land into production depends upon a number of
14 factors: the size ofthe capital investment needed (equipment, land, and land improvement costs); the fanner's
I 5 skill, experience, and financial resources; the risk of crop or yield loss due to disease or drought; the expected
I 6 income from crop sales; the likely variation in that income due to market price fluctuations; and the costs of
I 7 production. The compliance requirements and income effects of government farm programs must also be
1 8 considered. A primary factor, of course, is the availabilitv of the resources needed to produce and process a
1 9 particular crop: suitable soils and climate, labor, and water ofsufficient quantity and quality."
20
2 1 "Water p'nce affects these fi~ctors both directly and indirectly; it affects the cost of production directly and the
22 investment cost indirectly. The indirect link exists because (he water cost affects the expected fliture net retum
23 from crop production on the land in question: the higher the water cost, the lower this return is expected to be.
24 The market value of the land for crop production (aside from any speculative value for nonagricultural uses)
25 is, in turn, based on the present wortli ofthis expected net income."
26
27 "If the impact of a substantial water price increase cannot be sufficiently moderated by any options available
28 to the farrner, (alternative native water sources, less expensive water management practices, higher valued
29 crop,] the farrner may not have the financial resources or economic incentive to continue farming the land
30 affected by the water price increase. In this case, the land will be placed on the market, either voluntarilv or
3 I involuntarily, and its price reduced, reflecting the water price increase. Under these conditions, the final effect
32 is likely to be a change in the financial status of the person who o~s the land and perhaps also the person
33 who farms the land rather than the type ofcrop grown."
34
35 uOne business decision the farmer must make is which irrigation method to use. To make any decision
36 regar:ling an irrigation practice, detailed information is needed about soil properties, the system's capital costs,
37 operation and maintenance costs, new management skills, the availability of water, the effect on water and
38 energy use, and the effect on yields and quality. Most Irrigation system improvements will only be made if
39 such a change will increase the net returns ofthe firrming operation.
40
41 Efficiency studies indicate that all methods oflirigation or application ofwa~r can be efficient, and there is no
42 superior method that will save a laige percentage ofwater. No matter what method is used, the ~ ofa c(o~
43 does not change substantially. (See attached graph.) The manner of water delivety to~the farm also effects
44 water use and irrigation efficiency. It is impottant to note that improvements in irrigation efficiency do not
45 ncces~ly cult in reductions in depletions (evaporation, transpiration and plant rctentio~) Also, only
46 nominal impmvements in irrigation efficiency are still practicable.
47
48 The comparison of the Evapotranspiration (El) consumptive use in acre feet of water by local crops and the
49 acre feet required to. be distributed by irrigation systems in order to meet ET or the Evapotaanspir~tion of
so Applied Water (ETAW) is as follows:
SI
52 GRAIN i~J~ IA acre feet; ETAW applied or flood irrigation systems 1.7; ETAW sprinkler delivery lA.
53 rote: grain is commonly used as a rotation crop of 1-2 years between a1fal~ crops.)
54
55 ALFALFA ET 2.3 acre feet; ETAW applied or flood irrigation systems 3.5; ETAW sprinkler delivery 3.1.
56
PAGE 92 Show Image
Slskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 92
l PASTURE ET 2.4 acre feet; ETAW applied or flood irrigation systems 3.7; ETAW spnnkler deliver 3.2.
2
, ALTERNAT[VE CROPS other crops investigated by U.C. suitable for climate, elevation and o~owin~
4 season were found, in some cases, to use slightly less water, but not a huge amount. Markets for such crop
5 were found to be very limited. Winter wheat uses a little less water even~though the harvest date is similar to
6 normal planting cycles, however, there is a chance of early frost damage to the crop if it is blossoming at that
7 time.
8
9 A comparison ofefficiencies and associated costs ofaltemative application systems is as follows:
10
I I DRIP IRRIGATION this type qf system is obviously inappropriate for pasture. It has been tried on alfalfa
1 2 on an experimental basis in other areas where prolonged freezing is not an issue. In those trials it was found
I 3 that there was not much increase in efficiency as the crop has a flill canopy. The cost is as much as S I 000 an
14 acre for the system.
15
I 6 CENTER PIVOTS these systems are common in the Butte Valley.area where the termin is open and flaL
17 They require 160 acres without structures or trees and ofa regular shape. Systems cost from $40,OOO-5S,O0O.
18 The delivery ofwater is more uniform with efficiency of7S-80%, so there are cost savings.
19
20 WHEEL L~B SOLID SET The wheel line is the most co~nmon application systems in use in Scott and
21 Shasta Valleys and is also used in Butte Valley. Wheel-lines are used primarily for wheat, barley, alfalfa and
22 clover. The lines come in 20-30 feet sections, each with a large spoked wheel and a "rain-bird" type sprinkler
23 head. Linked together, the lines niri 1/4-1/2 mile in length depending upon the diameter of the pipe and the
24 power ofthe supply pump. The line agates one section ofa field at a time and is rolled to the next section bv
25 activating a gasoline motor at the center ofthe line.
26
27 The solid-set sprinkler is used primarily for vegetable crops such as potatoes. The system ako comes in
28 sections with one spriflkler head for every 20-30 feet of pipe, but it becomes a semi-permanent fixture durir'~
29 die growing season. Solid-sets can water an entire field at once needn't be moved and provides an efficient
30 method of frost controL A frost monitoring alarm warns the fanner at his home when the temperature
3 1 approaches 32 degrees Fahrenheit The farmer turns on the system which bathes the plant in water warmer
32 than the air tempetature. Unless there is a prolonged freeze, the water protects the crop from damage.
33
34 It is estimated that on 22% ofthe coverage, water application by wheel line and solid set sprinklers is less than
35 50% efficienL
36
37 BORDER OR FLOOD IRRIGATION this is a conimon application on pasture lands, ~cularly on ranches
38 with water rights dating back into the mid 1800s. It has been found that flood ~gation is not necessarily less
39 efficient, depending upon the S[O~ of the land to encourage even dIstribution of water across i~ L~r
40 leveling and scraping irriproves the distribution, but cat' cost as much as $200 per acre.
41
42 Another ttlatcd business decision an agricultw~Iist must make is the cost of the deliv~ system ofthe water
43 to the application systc~ Various application and delivery alternatives depend on whether the source of that
44 water is surface water or gmund water.
45
46 "As with urban a£~a, agricultuml ground ~ costs vary oonsidc~~bly througliou~ CaIifomi~ Many f~c~ots
47 influence thesc costs, including depth to ground watt, pump efficincies, and electricity ~es (Costs in the
48 larger Noith Coast Region arc rcpo[ted to vary ~m $10 to $70 per aac fbot this includes capital, o~ons
49 (including pumping enei~ costs), maintenance, and ttplacement cssts.)
so
51 *Conservationofwaeris
a priority issue among agricultw~1ists. The dynamics of water use tilmugliout the
52 system and th~e~effects ofoonservafion can be illustsated to claris apparent popular misconceptions icing
53 actual consuii~ptive use ofwatcr by agriculture. The enclosed illustration from the D~~ft Califomia Water Plan
54 u~ shows (with delivery system & crop i~rAw and irreooverable losses constant) how increased
55 efficiencies affecting diverted amounts would effect the system as a whole. The illussation demonssates that
56 the only real depletion or "consumption" of water in the systern is ETAW or "irr~~veiabIe losses." The
PAGE 93 Show Image
Sisklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 93
I remaining water is retained in the System through deep percolation into the aquifer or passed on through
2 outflow for reuse and eventual return to the stream.
4 From tl~is explanation, Opportunities for conservation may be differentiated by categorizing them itito: (I)
5 tliose that reduce actual consumption (~TAW or factors effecting irrecoverable losses); (2) those that increase
6 application efficiency (reducing displacement(diversion/circulation of water away from source aquifer or
7 stream); and (3).those that increase transport efficiency (reducing displacement(diversion/circulation of water
S away from source aquifer or stream).
9
l 0 it should be noted that factors effecting item ( I ) relate to the amount of vegetative transpiration and the
I I amount of evaporation. Upland vegetative rnanaoe ment and reduction of surface water exposure to heat and
1 2 low humidity (such as groundwater pumping and subsurface piping) are methods to reduce consumption.
13
14 Items (2) and (3) are water management methods that do not reduce consumption. They close the efficiency
I 5 gap be~veen water tr~sported and applied and water actually consumed. To the extent that less water is
16 required to be diverted from a stream be~veen diversion point and retum, there may be a greater instream flow
17 inthatsection.
Is
1 9 [t should be noted that there is also window of profitability in increased application efficiency. Former U.C
20 Extension Farm Advisor Roger Benton conducted a study on the Whipple faim in Scott Valley on the effect of
2 l amount ofwater application to tonnage offorage production.
22
23 Although production went up when more water was applied, it was found that maximum yield did not equal
24 maximum profit. Expenses of water and harvest increased with yield and at a certain point relative
25 profitability begins to decline. At the point of peak profitability, a 10% reduction in water may result in a
26 larger corresponding reduction in profit due to fixed costs such as land, pesticides, etc.
27
28 In addition, water management methods must meet moisture frequency needs of crops or long-term
29 productivity will be impaired. As alfalfa is a perennial crop of5-8 years with a harvest oftliree to four times a
30 year; and mixed grass/clover pasture is a perennial crop of 20 years or longer; once tliese plants emerge from
3 1 winter dormancy, any lapse in the normal Irrigation schedule will cause the plant to go into artificial
32 dormancy. when irrigation is resumed, the plant must draw on stored energy to revive causing a long4erm
33 negative impact on the overall productivity ofthe crop or pasture.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
PAGE 94 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resourne Management Plan
page 94
Febfuary 1996
Tnbk l
~ of ~~n'(~r ~ ~tid C~nt~~ WA(tr l}tz(J
A C~J'Al L)iv~sion Q~1 Bci'cf~ial li~ ~ j\ A'
[~t~o~ Pisttkuwat~~ Ustr Sour 0r Water l)tI;~~d Co~~ict Wi(~
~gc1l V&1I~ Trflga~~ Di~t~ict ~ ~ ~nd No~ CAnak Adju~t~ C2~~O ~
fectf~) t
Thl~kkc lnigati~ Di~ct J canal KI&rn~h I[Tig&tlon Bc~~eficial
~st~~Ct tttltm flows
KIamath U~~c Di~ct Bemcficia~ USC
15
~
Poc Vil1~ lii'pvov~ai( [)ist~ic( I~ ki~
~z'tctTwjSC Imgatiott Distnc( KI~ui'ath tmgat~~ District lOG ~-(~`~
?ir'cgn)v~ hriga~oi~ Di~tric( KJ~atli lmgadon Distnct ~ ~
Kjaii'a(11 Basis bnpmv~cnt Di~tiict KTama~ Imgation 3~6 ~
E~istnct!od'~ ___________________
MAlin Irrigation ~ Kiarnath 1~iga~n District 2~ ~~fccil~ \\
V~(UTUT"~ [~(Ch Company Lost Rivcr B~~ial
Shasta View izYigation 1)t~trict Kiamath Inigabon Dktnct B~ci~ u~
St'rmy~dc 1mg~on L)is~t KIai~~th Riv~ ~oo ~
ADY [ni~~)Yctlltnt t)istrict Klama~ Riv~ B~c~ ~
EnUTti(t Distlict 1mp~vctncn( Co Kiamath kiv~
Midland District tmptovc(ticnt Co. KlainaLh Rivcc Bct'cfici~ u~
~l~vena [}1strlct bnpmvcincnt Co. Kkn'~ Riv~
COIOT'ial Re~J~y ~D) Tut~lak~ lffiga(ioii District ~
Iz'dividu~~ COti~t5;~~IJ)St River Group Uppcc Kiattiath ~kc ~ ~
Tn61vidu~ ~ Ri1(~ Klam&th Riv~ ~) KR-3 ac~e4cctl~~
i'~dividual coi'tract~KIl) UKM~st Riv~
Upper KIam~ L~e cofl~cts Uppe( Kiamalli ~c iS ~
Wa(~ ren~~ Tuletake Imgation [}ist~~Ct. IS
Ki~madi ImgaCio~ District
TuI~ ~ke and ~wc~ KIaiti3th Rcfugcs Tutc ~e Sutt'p. Putnp D Necc~xy ~ ~~~lCilI ~n'ary
and P C~i'~J. ADY Ca"al ~sc of ~ug~
I..
PAGE 95 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 95
~3i:~Ic(t~i [ GO-93 11£ C(j~)(~i ~ 1(:~it ~I~tt
Figu~ lilA. Derivation of Applied Wate(, Net Water Use, and Depletion
Examp(e ~ Wate Use in Inb~d Areas
£0 U.'
~ w~ 1
C ~ Iff~COye~ab(e
£0 t'~qi~
" t-g~;i~
~ ; ErAW
Out~~ow ~ t, .
~I y..
EVAW
~ U~iI~
*c~**.*** \
A')',~I~d Wet~
A;,pc;.d We(~ krecov~&hIe
~I Uqjf~
~ ( U
~ (Jr. I-.
j; I
ETA~
T~eat~
Outf'Qw
~ u~.
~
F.m' A ~ C
-. -- -. &ee ~ ~ ~ TOTAL
~~g;*d We(ef 90 .t' `0 ~
R.t"e ~ ~ 14 6 0 SI
ft.tW~~t*,* 100
EVAW 55 7 2 ig
kl~~owr.6I* L~gq, 4 0 1 * S
O~~k(' 5I 7 4 1.
EtAW ~ ~ A'?UED WA~
~~co"e~~£e ~ io:scs 9'om ~ ~ go ~ ~ pe.co'~uo"ce I *o A ~
~ It.
PAGE 96 Show Image
Siskiyou Gounty Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page G
(3tillc(iii 160-93 ~1~c Q~Ii(~riii W~1cf Pit U~Ia(c
Figure Ill-C. Deflvati9n of Applied V/ater1 Net Water Use. ~nd O~pIetion
Example ~ ~~ost ln~~ A:eas wile Hi~ ~Ude
:0 :u
.J
A
T Uii ~ &~#~-**~ ~
~ -go Units
~
~
:i~ ~
? U ~
~
~AW
~ U
~ A'
A WiTdu~. ___ __
Ae*e ~ r ~
A-.dWetee `3 14 10 ~ 133
5'.u.. ~ 2~ * 7 4 c 17
Nft Wetee IJ:q
ETAW ~ 7 1 ~ U
~ t*eeeu 4 C I C 5
O~8'. &, 7 4 18 U
ETAW EVAPQI'AnsP~~Tvow ~ A?ruED ~
~~Qb'e ~~cb£sm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tb~~e A
I
PAGE 97 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
2 WATER USE IN GOLD MINING
4 According to Gold Minin? in Siskivou County 1850 -1900. Occasional Paper ft2; by Gary Stumpf; pub1ish~d
5 by the Siskiyou County Histoncal Society in 1979:
6
7 All ofthe miners in Siskiyou County, regardless ofthe mIning method used, were faced with the problern of
8 getting sufficient water to the areas they were mining. Water was needed to run their sluices, hydraulic giants,
9 derricks and mills; sometimes in enormous quantity. In some places, such as the wingdam operations al~ag
I 0 the Klamath and Scott rivers, water could be lifted on the spot by dip wheels and channeled direc~ly to ~e
l I it was needed, but in most cases, it had to be brought in by means ofditches and flumes~ sometime stretching
12 formiles.
13
1 4 Placers were the first type of deposits to be discovered and worked in Califomia as they were moce acce~~le
l 5 and easier to work. Lode deposits could only be extracted by crushing the surrounding rock, but placers ~re
1 6 already free from the rock matrix and needed only to be separated from sand and gravel. All th~ was n~d
17 was a means ofemploying the principles ofgravity to settle out and collect the heavier gold particles.
18
19 [n early mining nomenclature, "dry ~ were deposits found in flats and gullies where there was no
20 ready water supply. uWet. __ ~ were deposits found along sand bars or stream beds. "Bench diggirgs"
2 1 were located on narrow tables along hillsides. eeBars~ were the accumulations of sand and rock opposite the
22 bendsofstreams.
23
24 PAN MINING METHOD A tin or sheet iron pan was filled with dirt, gravel or sand and water. ~ger ~
25 were picked out. The pan was then held under the surface of water with one side slightly higher than the crier
26 and swirled with a circular motion. The swirling current carried away the lighter particles and hea'ier ma£~ia1
27 settled to the bottom of the pan. The method was slow. It was easily portable and useftil only i~ ve~ rich
28 deposits or for sampling richness ofnewly discovered deposits.
29
30 ROCKER OR CRADLE MINING M£THQD The rocker or cradle was a rectangular box about 34 feet bag,
3 1 1 l~ feet wide, 9-16 inches high at upper end with sides sloping like a cradle. It had a bar across the top near
32 the middle and the lower end of the box was left open. Small cleats or riffles were set mto the bottom of the
33 box toward this~end. A separate sieve, or hopper, about 4 inches deep was fastened to the upper end. Under
34 this and sloping downward toward the upper end ofthe cradle, was a canvas apron. The entire box was set on
35 two rockers. The hopper was filled about half way with ditt(graveL The operator sat at its s~&, rock it
36 with an upright handle while pouring water in with the other hans The water would cany much of the fi[}cr
37 material through the canvas apron and over the en~ such of the gold was ti~pped in the apron The
38 crevlces behind the riffles would catch more. Larger stones we~~ tossed out and the process was repeatci A
39 team of3 men (1 &gging, one c~g ~vel and one rocking) was said to average 100 bucketsfiil of gr~ve1
40 pcrman,perday(About4tirnesmorcefficicntthanthep~) Eadyrock&sweremadeo(ithCsil~at
4 1 Thompson'is Dry Diggins ~itka) wlth split oaks, ccnte[~ hewn our, and p&fo~tcd dccrskin to allow wait to
42 niii through as crude sieves.
43
44 WIYG WM MINING MErHOD The "lQng torn" was built in 2 sections. The flrs~ an inc[iK~cd woodea
45 troughfrom 10-30 feetlong, 1-2 feetwideatthetopandtwiceaswideatthebottom; about8 incbcsdec~ Set
46 into the bottom ofthe trough at the.lower end ~as a piece ofsheet~uon, pie~ccd with 112 mdi ho~ The ~icet
47 iron plate was either bent upward into a ~ curve as it approached the cud ofthc trough, or cise the ~ of
48 the tmug~i was~eu~t offat an angle and a flat perfbr~ed pi~te was attached to IL Below this was ~d a wider.
49 . inclined box, perhaps S feet long, with a series of riffles. Water ~as channeled into the trough, throt~ die
so pcrfbi~ted plate, into the riffle box below and outs The device allowed the use ofa continuous stream of~t&
SI insteadofbailing.
52
53 Several men could shovel gravel, while one stirred the dirt at the lower end and picked out rocks~ The fixier
54 material would wash to the lower trough and the gold settle behind the riffles. &8 men could work to~c~er
PAGE 98 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 93
I each washing 400-5OO'bucketsful ofgravel per day, or 4-) times as much as a rocker. I~oc'N~rs were used ~
~ early as 1850, in lieu ofcradles, whenevertliere was enough water.
4 SLUICE 1~(!KJNG A{ET[1OD -In the winter of I 850-185 1 shortly alter the ~ tom ~va 5 employed, addition:
5 riffle boxes were added to the bottom leading to the development of the sluice. It conisted ol an op~r.
6 inclined wooden trough at least 12 feet long, with cleats in the bottom at intervals, or `pith false bottom
7 perforated or split to form crevices for the gold to settle. A constant stream of water ~vas run ~ th
8 trough to wash the gold bearing travel shoveled into the upper end. A number ofsluice boxes could be strung
9 together, with tl)e lower end of one fitted into the upper end of the other and up to 20 m~n could work Li;
I 0 entire length profitably. It was estimated that the eff~iciency of the sluice was three times that of the ~ tom.
Ii
12 GROUND SLUICING AtiNING METHOD - Ground-sluicin~' was one of the techniques used near Blac'~
I 3 Bear Mine in Salmon River country. In this process, a small ditch was cut into a selected area of riverbank. A
14 stream ofwater was channeled into the ditch as men worked with picks and shovels at the banks and bottom.
I 5 The lighter earth was washed away and the heavier material settled into the crevices of rocks in the bottom of
I 6 the ditch. Sometimes, wooden sluices were set at the lower end of the ditch or rough natural rock served ~
1 7 riffles. At intervals of a few weeks or montlis, the heavy material in the bottom of the ditch was put through
I 8 rockers, long toms or wooden sluices to separate the gold.
19
20 BOOMJA'G MINJKG METHOD - ``Booming II was a variation on ground-sluicina using a one-time release of
oDeration run bv a
2 l dammed water to wash gravel and earth through the sluices. One account of a ~ `
9? man named Westover at Slide Creek was quoted in the Siskivou Pioneer, Vol.4, No.3, pp.47-52, 77 `SHe
23 built (a) self chuter, alter rip rapping the stream for a number of yards helow. A chuter is a dam with a aat
24 built with a trigger set to release the gate when the water fills the dam. I saw a gash cut through a point
25 projecting into the stream...by the chuter, it is almost unbelievable the amount ofdirt and rocks moved by this
26 rig in a few days. The chasm was at least thirty or forty feet deep."
27
28 WINGDAM MINING METHOD - In 1 850, John W. Scott and others discovered gold at Scott Bar near the
29 Scott River's confluence with the Kiamath. In this early operation, the mining practice employed to recover
30 gold was the construction ofa "wing dam."
31
32 Used on the Klamath, Scott and Salmon Rivers, "wingdams" were temporary dams that "fenced off" and
~, diverted water away from the portion ofa riverbed that was to be mined. They were made of sections of 6' x
34 4' pole frameworks (from willows, pines and small trees that grew along the river banks). Frame sections
35 were woven with willows and twigs to form a crib that was filled with roclcs, gravel and sand sandwiched
36 be~veen t'vo sections. The sections were sunk in the river to form a reasonably watertiajit barrier behind
37 which the mining was done. The "head" or upstream dam was often teinforced with planks. It projected out
38 from the bank to the center of the river or farther. A second dam was built at right angles downstream to a
39 "tail" dam that ran at right angles back to the bank.
40
4 1 After a portion of the river was dammed off, water had to be pumped out of the section continuously during
42 the mining operations. "Chinese pumps" or "China pumps" wett utilized in the do'tt~eain or deepest portion
43 ofthe area to be mined. The pump was operated by the current ofthe sti~atn. (Sometimes a second wingdam
44 was constructed firm the opposing bank in order to increase the velocity of thc water.) An undershot wheel
45 was placed alongside the dam, mounted on a 12" square tirnbcr shaft driven into the river bottom, buttressed
46 by large boulders. The diameter ofthc wheel was usually 1O~12 feet and the width from 8-18 fees Paddles
47 made of inch lumber and 12" wide would dip into the currcnL A gear connected the wheel with the
48 countershaft, usually a leather belt running on a CInim 3 fl in diameter; ran the pump. The pump was simply
49 an inclined box from 16-36 feet long. Attached in it at the bottom was another smaller dnim, connected with
50 the other dn!m via two leather belts. Attached to the outer side ofthe belt were paddles approx~ 6 x 16". The
S I belt and these paddles filled the pump box (0pen under the water at the lower end the top end opening to a
52 discharge flunie or box.) Some pumps were powered by overshot water wheels, turned by the weight of a
53 falling streaiii ofwater channeled into the top ofthe wheel.
54
55 Once the riverbed was exposed and diy, the men could shovel the gravel through sluices. The continuous
56 stream neeeled for the sluices came through the head dam or was lifted by current or "dip reels" in buckets
PAGE 99 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
i over the head dam. These wheels `vere from 20-26 feet in diameter and 4-8 feet wide After running through
2 the sluices, the water was discharged over the tail dam.
3
4 Mining the placer deposits beneath rivers could only be done during the d~ season when water levels were
5 relatively low. (On the Klamath and its tributaries, approx. 8 nionths from around the 1st ofApril to the 1st of
6 December offen less.) Since the mining season was short, the wingdam operations ofien ran day and night
7 using fires or oil lanterns for illumination. ~en mining was finished, as much as possible of the material of
8 the dam was salvaged. Frequently, the entire operation was washed away by unexpected storms and the dams
9 themselves never lasted the winter.
10
l l ~e Yreka Journal on October 23, 1872, described a local wingdain mining operation as follows: "Just below
12 thejunction ofthe Scott river, on the Kiamath river, Mr. \V. Learned is carrying on one ofthe largest mining
I 3 operationS in that section of the country. In this undertaking, he has used over 49,000 feet of lumber, and has
14 a flume conveying water from the Scott River, carrying about 1,000 inches of water, for ~e purpose of
I 5 runnin0 (`vo overshot wheels. Altogether, there are four wheels, two overshot and two river wheels, with three
16 pumps in operation, which have a capacity ofpumping 100 inches ofwater each. ~e derrick is also run by
I 7 water power, the rnast being 60 feet in length and the boom 70 feet, supported by wire guys. V~'1iere the wing
l 8 dam is built, the water in places is l 8 feet deep, with a very strong current. lIe has in his employ about 40
I 9 men, who make up quite a mining camp. All who witness this enterprise of Mr. Learned, say it excels in
20 magnitude anything of the kind ever seen. He has expended 58,000 "without realizing any profit, but is now
21 within a few feet ofbedrock, and in the dirt that prospects well, with a likelihood oftaking out very soon, an
22 enormous quantity of the ~ ore
23
24 WHEEL AND DERRICK TRANSPORT Bill and Jim Hart are said to have introduced a "wheel and derrick"
hoisting mac
25 on the Salmon River in I 857. ~e. "wheel" was a double or sin"le drum ~ hine, or windlass,
26 powered by a separate current wheel set in the river, or by an overshot wa~~vheel set up on ~e bank. Around
27 the drum of this windlass was wrapped a cable that ran to the top of a vertical timber mast several yards away.
28 The mast was 60-100 feet high and guyed securely by 4-6 cables. Toward the base of the mast, a boom,
29 perhaps 70 feet long, was attached so that it could pivot up and ~ The cable from the windlass to the top
30 of the mast continued down and connected to the boom through a set of pulleys, so that by engaging the
3 1 windlass drum with the turning shaft ofthe water wheel, the boom could be lowered or raised. Attached to the
32 boom was a large bucket into which the rocks were loaded. The entire boom and mast "derrick", as it was
33 called, could pivot on its base, thereby allowing the load of rocks, once raised, to be swung away from the
34 mined area, and onto piles where the large rocks were stacked. Derricks were occasionally used to transport
35 gravel to sluices, but this was usually done through one or more lifts ofshoveling or wheelbarrows.
36
37 HYDRAULIC MINJNG METHOD The mining method called hydraulic mining was invented in 1853. A
38 hose or pipe fed by water pressure carried through wooden flumes loosened ore, and gold was washed out
39 through sluices. The process of hydraulicking changed little from inception. it consisted, simply, of
40 channeling a stream of water to a high point above the claim, letting it fall through a pipe, and directing it
4 1 under the resulting great pressure to the base of a placer gravel baiik~ The water caved-in the bank and washed
42 the material (sometimes through trenches) on through sluice boxes placed downslope.
43
44 Originally, a rawhide hose with a wooden noZAe was used. The rawhide hose was replaced by canvas, then
45 metal pipe. (Miles and miles of heavy-gauge iron pipe, careflilly hand riveted with a double seam in 18
46 sections was needed to deliver water to hydraulic "monitors.") The wooden nozzle was replaced with the
47 "goose neck," a flexible iron joint formed by two elbows working one over the other. This was superseded by
48 iniproved inodels such as the "Craig Globe Monitor," "Hydraulic Chief' and the larger "Hydraulic Giants" that
49 could move both vertically and laterally. Beams with rock filled boxes were attached to the giants to serve as
50 counterbalances. By adding or discarding rocks, the operator could maintain the nose at a given angle
5 1 without having to support its weighL A "deflector" was patented in I 876, consisting of a short piece of pipe,
52 about an inch~~larger in diameter than the nozzle. It was attached to the top of the nose by a gimbal or
53 flexible ball joint and operated with a lever. By moving the lever in any direction, the noble could be
54 directed by the force of its own water pressure. The force of the water hitting the deflector caused the nozzle
55 to move.
56
PAGE 100 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 100
1 Hurdy-Gurdys' were water wheels used in hydraulic minina ~ originally lead sn~all tlat t)uc~ets around
2 their circumference aainst which the spray ofa small stream ofwater was directed under pressure through a
3 nozzle for power Later, they were improved by cupping the buckets.
S The sluices used in hydraulic minino were larger than in other types of mining operations. To preyent finer
6 gold from washing through, the "under current" was developed. An iron grate or `gri~ly' was set in a regular
7 sluice, and underneath a second sluice, or `undercurrent~' was placed. The finer material and some of the
8 water would pass through the grizzly to the undercurrent sluice, while most of the water and the larger rocks
9 passed through the regular sluice.
I0
1 1 In hydraulic mines along the rivers, water had to be channeled to the claim from a source higher in elevation,
12 to provide sufficient pressure to run the hydraulic giants. If the river were used as the source, the ditch or
I 3 flume might have to begin at a point on the river several thousand feet upstream from the claim in order to
14 reach the required elevation and allow for whatever grade was necessary to provide a good flow back to the
I S claim. Some hydraulic systems in Siskiyou Count reached gigantic proportions, with water falling up to 500
16 feet through a pipe 22" in diameter, resulting in enormous pressure. The giants could throw an effective
1 7 stTeam at a bank 200 feet a\vay.
`S
19 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR Af!NING ~£THOD The deeper the mining pit, the more difficult it was to raise
20 the gravel up to the sluices. The most efficient way to do this was the hydraulic elevator.' This consisted of
21 an upturned nozzle placed in the bottom o{a pit and set into the base ofan inclined large-diameter pipe. The
22 point at which the nozzle joined the pipe was open to allow gravel to enter. Water under high pressure was
23 directed through the nozzle and into the larger pipe. This created a suction and pulled the surrounding gravel
24 up into the pipe and out its other end, where it discharged into sluices. The Eastlick Mine (Lafe Eastick) at
25 Oro Fino was extremely deep, making the sluicing of tailings into the Scott River very difficult. Eastlick is
26 credited with inventing the hydraulic elevator.
27
28 In I 897, Sidney J. Fore built and operated a hydraulic elevator across from Callahans. A 6 mile ditch was dug
29 by hand and by horse teams from the west side of South Fork of the Scott River to provide pressure at the
30 elevator. An inclined roadway was made to bedrock and the elevator was put in place. A small hydraulic
3 1 giant was set up to cut down the gravel bank and drive the material toward the elevator. All rocks above 4
32 inches were picked out by hand and loaded into rock boats or skids and hauled to the surface of the bar.
33 Boulders were loaded on "limrds" and hauled to the surface. A flume for washing material lifted by the
34 elevator was built on a trestle above the surface ofthe bar, giving the flume sufficient grade to allow gravel to
35 move to the dump.
36
37 DREDGE MINING METHOD - Where streams cannot be diverted from their course by flumes an wing~dams
38 so as to. expose the bed, or in cases where bench placers do not have sufficient water for hydraulicking,
39 deposits are commonly worked by dredges; These can be divided into two classes: those that excavate the
40 material by means of line buckets on an endless chain and those of the dipper type, that have a single bucket
4 1 like a steam shovel.
42
43 Bucket dredges are usually employed in working places in the beds of streatns or where there is sufficient
44 water to use a flat boaL The plant consists of a series of buckets on chains that excavate the material and lift it
45 on the dredge. There are also sets of centriftigal pumps to flirnish water to sluices. There is usually an
46 elevator for raising the tailings and depositing them behind the dredge. After the material is excavated, it
47 always takes up considerably more space than in the bank, hence the tailings pile is always higher than the
48 bank from which it was excavated.
49
50 As the material comes from the buckets, it is usually passed through a tirtnmel to remove larger stones, which
5 1 pass at once to the tailings or discharge through a chute. The material that passed through the trammel is
52 conveyed over sets of riffles and amalgamating plates. Sometimes there are several sets of trranmels to
53 eliminate or screen out material of larger sizes.
54
55 Dipper dredges are practically steam shovels that are fitted to operate in gravel banks. They have some sort of
56 gravel elevator for removal of tailings and stacking them to one side or behind the machine. They also have
PAGE 101 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 101
I trammels, pumps, sluices, amalgamating plates etc. The dippers are used where there is insufficient water to
2 use a boat. Where there is no water, dry-placer washers work on the principle of tl~e fanning mill or
3 pneumaticjig blowing away the lighter sand and leaving the heavier gold.
4
5 ARRASTRA PROCESSING METJIOD The Mexicans are thought to have invented, or re-invented, the
6 arrastra centuries before the California Gold Rush. The arrastra was a shallow, stone-lined pit with a post set
7 in the center (sometimes a cut offtree.) A horizontal cross-beam was attached to the centerpost so that it could
S turn. One or more large stones (500-1000 lb. granite slabs), called "drags' or `mullers" were put in the pit,
9 attached to the cross-beam by chains or ropes. The ore, 400-1000 lbs. broken into small fragments with a
I 0 sledge hammer, was thrown in the pit along with some water and the cross-beam was turned around. (One
l I arm ofthe cross-beam could extend so that a mule could be harnessed to turn it.) The ore was crushed by the
I 2 ~ stones. The resulting creamy mass could be panned or sluiced. To maximize the gold collected,
1 3 mercury (quicksilver) in amounts equal to expected gold could be added to the ore mud. This would adhere to
14 the gold to form an amalgam, which, being heavier, would settle on the bottom ofthe pit while the rest of the
1 5 mud was washed out. The amalgam was collected about once a month and placed in a cylindrical iron vessel
I 6 called a "retort", which was heated until the mercury vaporized and ~e pure gold (resembling a sponge)
I 7 remained The mercury vapor was passed through a water cooled rube, condensed and saved for re-use. The
I S pure gold was melted and cast into inoots.
19
20 Most, if not all, arrastras in Siskiyou County were water powered. Overshot wate~vheels turned a shaft to
2 l which a pin wheel was attached. This was positioned to mesh at right angles with a second pin-wheel secured
22 to the pivoting centerpost of the araastra. A double arrastra of this type was in operation on the Commodore
23 Mine on Barkhouse Creek in the 1 890s. It could process five tons of ore every 24 hours and required 2 men
24 (12 hour shifts) to operate. In addition to this araastr~, there were 29 others operating in the county by the turn
25 ofthe century.
26
27 STAMP HILL PROCESSING METHOD - The stamp mill was more expensive than the arrastra and required
28 skilled carpenters and mechanics for framing and construction. The term "mill" referred both to the machine
29 and the building and associated machinery. The mill was always built on a slope to allow the ore to fall, slide
30 or flow from one apparatus to the next by the force of gravity.
31
32 The ore carts were dumped in a chute at the top of the building that channeled the ore over an iron grate or
33 "grizzly". Smaller pieces dropped through to the stamp mill. laarger pieces were fed into a `jaw cnisher~' (one
34 fixed and one "swing" jaw pulling and pushing across the other. The "V" at the bottom allowed smaller pieces
35 to fall through.
36
37 The stamp mill consisted of one or more heavy pestles, ~lled I~5~~~p5It Each stamp was compnsed of 4
38 parts: an iron shoe; with a conical neck connected to a boss; a stem and; a tappeL The stems were held in place
39 and in alignment by wooden guides fastened to timbers that were part of the frame of the stamp mill. A tw~
40 lobed cam on a horiwntal steel shaft was situated 5~ feet above the m9rtar so that the lobes of the cam when
4 1 rotafing, would engage the undersurface offlie tappet, lift the cam, then disengage and drop iL The cams were
42 spaced on the shaft at equal intervals and set so that no two adjacent stamps fell in succession. (As one was
43 falling, the next was rising.) Each stamp weighed up to 850 lbs. and most mills had 5-10 in line. (Black Bear
44 Mine, south ofSawyers Bar had 32 stamps, each weighing 750 lbs.) The stamps fell in a rect~tngular cast iron
45 mortar, resting on concrete or fimbers to absorb shock. Replaceable circular steel dies with square bases were
46 set into the mortar under each stamp to absorb wear. The ore was crushed to powder, mixed with water and
47 the pulp flowed through a screen at the front
48
49 The pulp then flowed onto an inclined table covered with amalgamating plates (copper~coated with mercury.)
50 The gold would settle and adhere to the mercury. Periodically, the plates were scraped and the amalgam
5 1 retorted. Some of the larger mills (Black Bear, Gold Run, Gold Ball Mines) then channeled the ~Ul~ onto
52 *`shakin~ tables~'' or mechanical concentrators called ttvanners''. The shaking table was a large, slightly inclined
53 rectangular table mounted on rockers or slides that allowed it to move back and forth. The upper surface of
54 the table was a series of small, parallel riffles. The vanner was for very fine pulp. It consisted of an endless
55 rubber belt, 4~ feet wide, stretched across a slightly inclined framework and driven and supported by a series
~4 ~r r~I1~~ Th~ ~ ~ ~~hi1p. the v~nn~r on~~t~d The helt moved ~in~lone with ~ ~m~ll ~fre~m
PAGE 102 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 102
I of water coming down so the pulp slowly moved down. The gold settled and adhered to the surface of the
2 belt Underneath, it was washed into a concentrate box.
)
4 or the 70 stamp mills operating in the county in I 898, 48 were water powered (the cams were turned by
S overshot ~vatev\vheels); I 5 were steam powered, utiliung large boilers; and 3 were water and steam powered.
6 ~e power source ofthe remaining 4 1 5 un~nown.~ ~fl~e }(larnath Mine, at the head of ~ddy'~s Gulch, had one
7 ofthe largest stamp mills with 32 stamps and was able to crush from 4S-SO tons a day.
S
9 DRIFT AfINING METHODS ``Deep dic'oinos'' eferred to placers lying well beneath the surface of the
10 ground laid down by rivers ofearlier ages, subsequently buried by sediment and debris. In places they ranged
I I up to several hundred feet thick and the only way to exploit them was by digging tunnels or shafts. To mine
12 the deep placers, a method called ``dnft mininc''' w as used beginning in I ~ In this process holes, called
I 3 "adits" were dug horizontally into hillsides where gold hearing deposit, or stratum, was expected to be. \Vhen
I 4 it was located, additional excavating, called "drifts's, were driven into it on both sides to extract paying gravel.
1 S Tracks were laid in the adits and the gravel was wheeled out in carts to the surface where it was washed in
16 sluices. Alternately, vertical shafts were sunk until paying deposit was reached, then dnfts were driven out into
I 7 the stratum from this point. Underground, the gravel was put in containers, carried to the base of the shafts
I 8 then raised to the surface with a derrick and windlass powered by a current or overshot wheel.
19
20 Drift mining along the Klamath be~veen Ash and Lungrey Creeks, ~vas described by the Yreka Semi-\Veeklv
21 UniOR newspaper on Jan. 28, 1863 as follows: "Up until the fall of 1857, the deep channel ofthe river through
22 this section had never been prospected. During that fall, Campbell & Co. succeeded in sinking a shaft to the
23 rock and struck a splendid prospect. The consequences was a general `rush to the Klamath'...many failed to
24 strike immediately on to good pay, and the heavy freshets ofthe following winter taking offtheir wheels and
25 improvements, they left in disgust with Klamath mining. Others more fortunate struck good prospects... the
26 channels or pay leads are from 20 to 40 feet wide...the dirt is drifted, thrown into boxes, placed on cars, run to
27 the shad and raised by derrick and wheel power, the wheels being set in the current ofthe river. The ground
25 under the river may be drifted with as much safety as the bars (the di~ overhead being solid), but either has
29 generally to be well timbered. There is ground enough in this section...to give employment to hundreds of
30 men for many years..."
31
32 WEIR AfEASURING METHOD FOR DETERM{NiNG ~VATER FLOW - A , , . `, an obstruction placed
33 across a stream for the purpose ofdiverting the water so as to make it flow through the desired channel. The
34 channel may be a notch or an opening in the obstniction itselfand when properly constructed a weir forms one
35 ofthe most convenient and accurate devices for measuring the discharge ofstreams. Amount offlow can be
36 determji~ed by simple formulas and coefficients that depend upon observed conditions. Two general forrns of
37 weirs evolved - weirs with and without end contractions. "With" - the notch is narrower than the channel
38 through which the water flows, causing a contraction at the bottom and two sides of the "issuing" stream.
39 "Without" (also called a weir with end contraction suppressed) the notch is the tull width ofthe channel and
40 the issum~ stream is contracted at the bottom only.
41
42 The edge of the weir should be made from ffiin pieces of metal having a sharp inner edge (or left flat for 118
43 inch for strength.) The hottom edge offfie notch must be straight and level, with the sides at right angles to the
44 bottom. The head "H'1 producing the flow is the vertical distance from the crest of the weir to the surface of
45 the water (measured back by reference to a stake driven in near the bank to a height level with the top of the
46 weir.) The distance from the crest ofthe weir to the bottom ofthe feeding canal should be at least three tirnes
47 the hea& The water must approach the weir with little or no velocity. ~is can be accomplished by baffle
48 boards.)
49
PAGE 103 Show Image
* Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 103
` WATER LAW PRINCIPLES
2 An industry pcrspcctivc compilcd by the Slsklyou County harm Bureau
)
4 (Pnmary resource used was The California Law of Water Ricihts by Wells A. Hutchins; ~arvev
0 Banks.
5 State Engineer ofCalifomia; in cooperation with the U.S.D.A.; Sacramento, Calif.; 1956.)
6
7 Although CalIfornia water law is extremely complex, the following is offered as simplified background
8 reference concemin~ some
~ ofthe basic principles ofwater law as applicable to Siskivou
County.
9 All water rights are "usufructuary"; that is, the right pertains to the use of the water, (including the benefiL~
10 derived from its momentum or impetus, 52 and not to ownership of the ~ or body of the water itself. 5
I I All water use rights are subject to conditions of"reasonable and beneficial use.e154
12
I 3 On April l 3, 1 850, California adopted the common law of England so far as not repugnant to or inconsistent
14 with the Constitution oftlie United States or laws ofthe State; (Ca. Stats. pg. 219.) This included the English
1 5 doctrine of riparian rights, which has been the foundation upon which Califomia water use rights have been
1 6 developed.
17
18 MPARJAN RIGI4TS:
19
20 ENGUSH COMMON LAW DOCTRINE V. CALIFORNIA DOCTRINE
21
22 The English common law riparian right was described by Norris Ilundley, Jr., Water and The West. The
23 Colorado River Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West. University of California Press.
24 c1975, pg. 66:
25
26 "[TJhe riparian doctrine guai~~nteed to the owner of land bordering a river the ~ll flow ofthe river, less only a
27 reasonable amount taken by those upstream to satisfy domestic needs and to water livestock. An o'vner's rio~t
28 was strictly usufructuary that is, he had a right to use the water, but he did not o~vn the stream itself. Most
29 important, however, he had a right to the tull flow, undiminished in either quantity or quality, and he was
30 enjoined from impairing the similar right ofother riparians. Use was not necessary to create his right, nor did
3 1 nonuse terminate i~ Location alone was paramount, and the water right simply resided in the o~vnership of the
32 land.
33
34 The Califomia application ofthis right has been detennined by the courts to include the following principles:
35
36 (1) Lands having riparian status are determined by three criteria: a) they must be contiguous to the
37 stream; b) the right extends only to the smallest tract held under one title in the chain oftitle; and c) the land
38 must be in the watershed ofthe stream.
39
40 It is not only the portion of a tract bordering upon a stream "actually washed by the waters of the stream" that
4 1 is riparian; if a ti~ct originally riparian has never been subdivided, it all remains riparian to the sti~am. The
42 length ofthe frontage ofthe land that abuts the stream is immateriaL It Is that there is access to the stream at
43 some point on die land that is important56 Riparian lands are those lands that abut the bana:s of the stream that
44 contain its flow. The law does not distinguish between the riparian right establishe:l through "bottom lands" to
45 a stream, even if these lie between higher bluffs that contain the stream duriflg flood~57 Mere contiguity of
46 tracts to each other cannot extend the riparian right inherent to one section to another not touching the strearn,
47 even though both become owned by the same person at the same time.58 The riparian right may not c)tend to
48 more land than that embraced within the single original patent that established the inifial riparian title.59
4~ . Lands that weie originally swampland or mai~hland, but were reclaimed, are as much subject to riparian rights
50 as any other lands.~ In order for land to be "riparian" to a stream, it must be in the watershed ofa stre~61
51
52 (2) Domestic purposes (natural use) arefirst entitled to preference over commerciat (artificial us&)
53
PAGE 104 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 104
I Domestic purposes includes the sustenance of human beings, for household conveniences and for the care or
2 livestock Watering of f~~rmstead livestock is a reasonable and beneficial domestic or natural use with
preference 6' ~vatering of commercial herds of livestock, although a proper riparian use, is an arrificial
use. ,63 The use of stream for power is a proper, but artificial use. 64
Recovery ofgravel for commercial sale
5 has also been established as a riparian right.65
6
7 (3) Riporian uses in California were held to include the irrigation oflands riparian to a watercourse
8 as an "artificial" use.
9
I 0 Because of California's arid climate, the couns modified the riparian right to include irrigation of riparian
1 1 lands.66 As with commercial livestock use, the irrigation right is subordinate and applies only to the su~lus of
67
l 2 water above the quantities required for primary natural uses.
13
l 4 (4) In addition to requirements for reasoiiable a,zd beneficial ire, the Calij~rnia riparian right to
I 5 fullfio~v ~vas subject to the lawfiil water use rights ofupstreaI?z users and actual iiyu~'.
16
I 7 The ripanan right is limited to an entitlement that stream waters flow to his land in such quantities necessary
I 8 for use on his riparian land; subject to an equitable portion ofavailable water by all riparian users, and sut~ject
6a
! 9 to appropriative use rights senior to the riparian right. Aesthetic considerations for flill flow were not held to
20 be a protected beneficial use when it would deprive upstream users from putting the water to utilitarian
2 1 pumoses. 69 The do~vnstream user has the right to insist that the water not be polluted by upstream use to his
70
22 real and substantial injury.
23
24 (5) The right ofthe riparian owner to use water ofthe streani includes both the right to divert it from
25 the channel and the obligation to return it to the stream after it has served his lmvful purposes.
26
27 Until it reaches his land, the riparian owner has no right or title to water use other than the protective right to
28 see that the ftill flow past his land to which he is entitled is not illegally diminished. (See section on adverse
29 possession below.) The riparian owner may divert the water to which he is entitled at any point on his riparian
30 land that is suitable, provided he retums the excess to the stream above the lower boundary of his riparian
1 tract. 72 73 The riparian owner may divert at a point upstream of his riparian lands as long as he do~ not
32 impair the rights of others in the stream and pennission and necessary easements are granted by a~ected
33 users. 74 The method of diversion (darn and headgate, pumps and buckets) is not material, as long as the rights
34 of others are not impaired.75
35
36 (6) The riparian water use right includes the right to reasonable use ofthe waler on any portion of
37 the tract which is riparian to the watercourse, but not elsewhere, for domestics stock and irrigation puroses.
38
39 Riparian rights are vested in the owner of the abutting land and extend only to the use of the water upon
40 abutting land and none other. 76
41
42 NATuRE OF THE RIPARJAN RIGHT AS PROPERTY -
43
44 (1) The riparian right is considered real property.
45
46 Title to the private riparian right is acquired by the owner ofriparian land as a part ofthe transaction by which
47 he acquires title to the lane The riparian right is "part and parcel" ofthe soil and "runs with the 1ari~"~ It is
48 held to be an incident of property in the land and real property.~ Normally, the riparian nght passes with
49 conveyance ofthe land.79 80
50
5 1 (2) The riparian nght is not lostfrom disus&
52
t destroyed or irnpaired by the fact that the ripanan owner has not yet used the water or has no
53 Therightisno
54 present intention ofdoing so.81 Although riparian rights are not subject to loss by abandonment or forfeiture,
55 they ~re subiect to loss bv prescription or adve~e possession and use, and many riparian rights in
56 California have been lost in this manner. An appropriator, or another riparian, who uses the wat& as an
PAGE 105 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Feb rua~ 1996 page 105
I invasion of another's riparian right and with his acquiescence for the period of conditions running under the
2 statute of limitations (5 years), may acquire a vested right to continue to use that water to the detriment of the
3 riparian owner. 82
4
5 (3) The date a riparian right attaches is the date sentry Onto domain public domai'i (priY'ate); 0
6 the date ofland "reservation" ({ederal government).
7
8 Until public domain lands were either disposed of into private ownership, or withdrawn from disposai
9 (`9reserved'~), riparian rights did not vest in the land.83 A land patent to an individual conferred the rights of a
I 0 riparian owner dating back to his "date of entry' onto the land as recognized in the federal or State laric
l I patent. The date of creation of the withdrawal from public domain or `4reservation" of land by the
I 2 government is the date recognized as the date upon which (qualified) riparian rights vested in federal reservec
l 3 lands, subject to State water law. 85
14
15 In 191 1, (Calif. Stats. April 8, 191 1, pg. 821.) the California State Legislature declared that all water or use OE
16 water within the state ofCalifomia is the property ofthe people ofthe state ofCalifomia.' This was held to
I 7 apply only to ~ water' water available for use over and ahove that which was private property held &
I 8 a riparian right (or previously vested appropriative right,) or as a federally ``reserved'' riparian ~ 86
l 9 surplus waters were held to be "public waters," subject to regulation by the State.
20
2 l On December l 9, l 9 14, the Califomia Water Commissions Act (Calif. Water Code 2774) to regulate "surplus
22 waters" became law. 8? The Act stated that all new appropriations of surface water required either a ceitifi~~
23 of registration (for small scale domestic use,) or a permit (leading to a license.) The Act was held not to he a
24 "reservation" of riparian rights of State lands as it confe~ed the State's riparian right on those appropriatin
25 water in a manner prescribed by the code. 88
26
27 (4) The ripanan right is "correlative" with that ofother riparia?zs.
28
89
29 A riparian right is "correlative," that is, shared equally by riparian owners as a tenancy in common. Wni:s
30 means that the individual riparian water use right is not "fixed" in quantity, but is shared equally as availabLe
3 1 and can be put to beneficial use.
32 In addition, the use of water by a riparian user must be consistent with the rights of all other owners of lanc~
90
33 riparian to the same supply. (The reasonableness of the quantity of water to which any one ripanan L
34 entitled is measured by comparison with the needs ofall other riparian owners.)91 Once it is quantified, suc~
35 as in an adjudication, it ceases to be a riparian right and becomes an appropriative right by nature.
36
37 C14ANNEU AND BEDS AS RIPARIAN PROPERTY -
38
39 "Under English common law, private title to land along navigable waters - which were defined as watt
40 effected by the ebb and flow ofthe tides extended to the high water mark, and land below that belonged Lo
4 1 the Crown. Navigable waterways w~ public highways and also public fishenes; the public had the right to
42 use not only the water but ako its baiks, both for draft anirnals to pull barges or other craft and for d[yin~
43 curing, or cleaning fish. Nonnav~gable st[tams were quite another matter. the riot to use them belonged
44 exclusively to the owner ofthe land through whiclli they flowed, and the owner could do anything he~~leased
45 with the ""~ter so long as he did not interfere with the equal rights oflandowne~ fiuther downsti~am."
46
47 "In America, the law ofriparian rights became more complicated than it was in Englani For one thing, thc
48 common law ofriparian rights was adapted only in New Yo~ New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and the four
49 New England colonies. For another, important variations were fo~corning in New Engiani By fiat of
so nature, there were precious few navigable stir in New England under common law definition except 51
S I * Maine, the New England seashore is located on or near the ~l line, and only the Housatonic, Connecticut, and
52 Piscataqua Flyers were affected by the fides flirther than a few miles in~an~ More significant was tb~
53 evolution in New England of the law regulating the building of dams on private strearns. Owners of st~cil
S4 streams could build weirs or weir darns for the entrapment of fish only ifthey had a license frog the colonial
55 assembly, and the license carried with it a fixed price for the sale of fish. Mill dams were licensed and
~ ~ ~fl ti,~ ~ vn~nner ~ were private bridles or ferries. Thus the principle of goverininent regulation
PAGE 106 Show Image
Slsklyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 10
1 otrates and standards ofservice in `public utility' enterprises was established early iri New Englai~d. The other
2 tive colonies did not adopt the common law in regard to riparian riohts rather the tendency there as to
3 broaden the definition of navigable wate~vays until it extended to all fresh-water streams that were potentially
4 navigable.~~93 ~
S (Fnipliasis nune)
6
7 At the time of patenting by the federal government, the General Land Office (Bureau of Land Management)
S made a deternunation as to whether ripanan land was riparian to a navigable or nonnavigable stream All
9 riparian tracts along the Scott river and the Shasta kiver and their tributaries were determined to abut
I 0 nonnavigable streams and the land patents issued included recognition of the private ownership of channel
I 1 and beds ofthe streams95
12
I 3 kecently, applicability of the so-called State `Public Trust Doctrine to these river ~`stems has been as~r~ed
I 4 by tl)e Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force and others. The State describes the Public Tnist Doctrine as
15 tollows.
16
l7 (Califbmia's Rivers. A Public Trust Report - Executive Summa~ prepared for the California State Lids
IS Commission in 1993):
19
20 ~a~c vi ``It is ` ~~orth noting that the terms of the trust which govern tl~e management of sovereign tnist lands
2 1 whcthcr in thc D~Ita, riverbeds or elsewhere, are found in the statutes and the decisions of tn~ judiciai~ and
22 collectively comprise what is commonly referred to as the Public Trust Doctrine. This Doctrrne
23 o-iginated in early Roman law~and, as incorporated into English Common law, held that chain re&ources
24 were available in common to all humankind by `natural law.' Among those common resour~ were `the air.
25 ~ water the sea and consequently the shores of the ~ ~avi~able wate~~ays were d~lared to be
26 `common highways, forever free,' and available to all the people for whatever public uses may be made of
27 :hosc watc~vavs.
28
29 `~1n California, the Public Trust Doctrine historically has referred to the right ofthe public to use California's
30 ~Yate~vays to enoaac in `co mmerce, navigation, and ~ More recently, the doczrine has b~~n defined by
3 l the courts as providing the public the right to use California's `~`ater resources for: navicauon fisheries.
32 commerce, environmental preservation and recreation; as ecological units for scientific study; as open space;
33 as environments which provide food and habitats for birds and marine life; and as environments which
34 vorably affect the scenery and climate ofthe area.9'96
35
36 pg. SO-S l : "The State of California owns and administers several different types of interest in nvers and
37 streams within the state's borders by virtue of being the sovereign representative of the people. These rio~ts
38 are the property of the state, and the state's powers with respect to these property rights are sirnilar in ce~iain
39 ways to the rights of private propei~y owners, but are governed by the law of public trusL These rights ar~
40 grounded in English common law, as interpreted and applied by the federal and state court systems of the
4 1 United States. The state is guardian ofthosc rights which fall under the protection ofthe ancIe~it `Public Tnist
42 DoctrIne,9 which in England governed ce[lain rights and responsibilities which were entibsted to the sing As
43 a result these rights collectively are often referred to as `sovereign' rights, or `sovereign lands.'~ `£
44
45 "In California, sovereign rights and responsibilities of the state which are tradifionally associated with real
46 property o~~ership have been designated to tile State Lands Cotnmission (51£). The Public Trust Doctnne,'
47 as it affects these rights, is designed to protect the n'ghts of the public to use watercourses for commerce,
48 navigation, fisheries, recreation, open space, preservation of ecological units in their natrrral state, and sirnilar
49 uses for which those lands are uniquely suited.
so
5 1 "The state owns, as t:rustee for the public, the beds of fidal navigable rivers and strea:fls up to the Ordhi&y
52 High Water lark (under natural conditions, that elevation reached by the average of all tides over an 18.6
53 year period). The state similarly owns, in its sovereign capacity, the beds of all nontidal, navig2ble rivers and
54 streams up to the Ordinary ILow Water Mark. (The temi ~`ordinary" in each ofthe above s:tatem~ts is a legal
55 terrn of art which refers to property boundaries, which may sometimes, but not r}eccssarily always, visible
56 from the ground). Where the state owns the fee interest in the underlying land, its o~~ership has some of the
PAGE 107 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 107
I same characteristics as private property ownership, but is subject to the constraints of the public trust d~mie
2 For exaniple, the state can and does reqwre compensation to the public for any private use of its pro~uty'
3 including both surface use and the extraction of resources froiu the land. However, th~ state does not have the
4 unfettered right to alienate its trust property.
5
6 "Along navigable nontidal watet\vays, the state also owns a right offen te~ed a `public trust easenient in the
7 area be~veen the Ordinary Low Water Mark and High Water ~iark. ~e state has both the right ~ the
8 obligation to balance competing land uses in the easement area. In general, the title ofthe private owner of the
9 fee underlying the state's easement is subservient to the easement, although the fee owner may use the l~~ds in
10 any way `not inconsistent with public trust needs." (Emphasis mine.)
II
I 2 The imposition ofa public trust easement on patented lands dete~ined in the patenting process to be ripariai~~
I 3 to nonnavigable streams, would be, in effect a challenge to the patent, or a taking of private proper\L~ for
14 public use. 99
is
16 APPROPRIATIVE WATER USE RIGHTS:
17
I 8 HISTORY OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT
19
20 In the early years ofCalifomia, the federal government did little in regard to the issue ofpublic domain lands
2 1 and their disposal. As the use of water was necessary in developing mineral deposits, minino dis~ricL~
22 developed local systems to recognize claims to water use. These "appropriative" rights were acquired simply
23 by physically controlling and beneficially using water under posted claim. As Charles \V. M~urdy
24 explained, in Stephen J. Field and Public Law Development in California. 1850-1866: A Case St'~~v ~:
25 Judicial Resource Allocation in Nineteenth Centur" America. (pg. 236):
26
27 Following a tradition of collective action on the mining frontiers of other continents, the miner forn1ed
28 districts, embracing from one to several of the existing `camps'' or ~ ~s' and promulgated regulations ~:
29 marking and recording claims. The miners universally adopted the prio(ity principle, which Simpl\
30 recognized the superior claims ofthe first arrival. But the...rniner's codes defined the m&~imum size of claims,
3 1 set limits on the number of claims a single individual might work, and established regulations des~ng
32 certain actions long absence, lack of diligence, and the like as equivalent to the forfeiture of riah~ A
33 similar body ofdistrict rules regulates the use ofwater flowing on the public domain."
34
35 According to Wells A. hutchins in Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States. ~g. I 61):
36
37 "This development and the resulting mining industry had a profound influence upon the political and
3 8 economic grovtth of California and on the development of water law throughout the West As water was
39 required in much of the gold inining process, rights to the use of the water were of ftuidamcntal impo(1ance~
40 This mineral area was Mexican territory when gold was discovered but was ceded to the United States less
4 1 than 6 months later by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There ~vas no organized government th~ in the
42 early years, nor much law except that made by the miners'who helped themselves to the land, gold, and ~ater
43 under rules and regulations of their own making as they went along. In the words of the U[iitcd States
44 Suprerne Coutt (Jennison v. Kirk. 98 U.S. 453, 457, 1 879), speaking through Justice Field who had been Chief
45 Justice ofCalifomia, the miners were emphatically the law-mal:ers, as respects mining, upon the public tands
46 in the state.'
47
48 "The rules and regulations of the mines were made by and for the individual camps and hence varied fro(iL
49 one locality to another, but essentially the principles that they embodied were of masked uniformity. These
$0 principles related to the acquisition, holding and forfeiture of individual mining clairns, based on the priority
5 1 of discovery~and diligence in working them. And to the acquisition and exercise of rights to the needed ~
52 were applied comparable principles-posting and recording notice of intention to divert a specific quantity of
53 water, actual diversion and application ofwater to beneficial use with reasonable diligence, continued exercise
54 of the right, priority of time of initiating the appropriation, and doctrine of prior appropriation of water for
PAGE 108 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 p: 10
I beneficial use. ~iese property rights in land and water were thus had, held, and enjoyed under local r~;5 th:-:
2 were enforced by communiry action."
)
4 In 1851, the California Legislature passed the California Practice Act statino ``In acto ns respecting .~~iniri
5 Claims, proof shall be admitted of customs, usages or regulations established and in force at th 5j', 0
6 diooinas, em bracing such claim; and such customs, usaoes or regulations, ~~hen not in conflict ~ th
7 Constitution and Laws of this State, shall govern the decisions of the action," (Stats. ch. 5, section 621, pg.
8 149; 9 Stat. L. 928.) This act affirnied common law, or customs and usaaes , as th~ rule in court .
9 regarding mining. ~IJiis included recognition ofthe rule ofprimacy ofprior appropriation ofwater 0£ :~rst Ir:
I 0 time, first in right." Water rights of this era were upheld by the courts as "possessory rights" perfec: ~~ains:
1 1 any other claimant but the U.S. c'ovemment.
12
13 The recognized method for legal appropriation of water followed principles relating to the establish::~nt of
14 minin~claims
An appropriator would post notice of intention to divert a specified quantity of water, oceec
1 5 with the diversion and application of the water to beneficial use with reasonable diligence and main~in the
I 6 water n~ht with continued use. Priority of time established the primacy of right relative to other users.
17
I 8 Three Common Law principles were the foundation for the massive body of Western State law that evolvec
1 9 largely in California to govern the use of "public lands" in the absence of Congressional ac:'on or
20 enforcement: (I) The Doctrine of Presumption: (2) the n~ht of possession: and (3) a ~riod ~f silen:
21 acquiescence.
22
23 (1) In Conner v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548, 555; (1856), the California Supreme Court relied on the Doc~ne 0;
24 Presumption, under which it was presumed from the absence ofspeciflc legislation that everyone who wishec
25 to "appropriate" water or to dig gold on the public domain within California had a license to do so, ~ovidec;
26 that the prior rights.of others were not thereby infringed. 10 IO~ 103
27
28 These principles were affirmed in numerous subsequent cases such as McDonald V. Bear River and Auburn
29 Water and Mm. Co.. 13 Calif. 220, 232; (1859,) where the o'vnership of a water right "as a substan~ve anc
30 valuable property" was held to be "distinct sometimes, from the land through which it rows."
31
32 (2) In California, until transfer of title from the public lands to private ownership could b~ made z-:oucn
33 patent, "the right of possession," or prionty of use, determined the right of ownership in water use. r~.~tneraI
34 extraction, range use (SEE Section on Ranching and Dairy,) nghts ofway (SEE Section on Transportation
35 and Rights of Way,) entry and homesteading of land as between individuals perfect against any claimant but
36 the U.S. `04
37
38 An excellent description of the application of the principles of the Common Law rioht of possession or "first
39 in time, first in right" may he found in the 1914 case of Palmer v. Railroad Commission. 167 Calif. 163, 168,
40 138, 170-173, 138 Pac 997 where the Court stated:
41
42 "An analogy was found in the rules of the common law relating to controversies over the poss~ion of land
43 . between per~ns who had no title thereto and in which the real owner did not interfere or intcr~ene...the maser
44 between the pctsons litigating was to be decided according to the rules of law in regard to priority of
45 possession ofthe land.~Ios
46
47. (3) As time progr~ed, the eastern U.S. goveniment, embroiled in the issues of slavery and the Civil War,
48 made no effort to assert ownership control over the public lands and its resources. LAnd, mineral clairns, water
49 use rights, the right to customary range and rights ofway were staked out, developed and sol& The Corts
so recognized the legitirnacy ofsuch ~sactions based on the Common Law "right ofpossession'* sanctioned by
51 di _____________________
C long "period ofsilent acquiescence" evident by the inaction ofthe U£. Congrss as tacit consenL (See the
52 1 877 case of Forbes V. Gracey. (94 U.S. 762,763,766-767.)
53
54 Under the Act of July 26, 1 866 or "Lode Act" (U.S. Statutes at Large, XIV, pp. 25 l-2S3,) "An Act Granting
55 the Right of Way to Ditch and Canal Owners over the Public [ads and for other ~ Congress
56 recognized "That whenever, by priority of possession, rights to die use of water for mining, agricultural,
PAGE 109 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 109
I manufacturing, or other pu~oses, I~ave vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged
2 by the local customs, laws and, decisions of the courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be
3 maintained and protected in the
4
5 The "Placer Act" or U.S. Mining Law amended July 9, 1870, (vol. 16 Statutes at Large p. 217; U.S.C. vol 30,
6 section 35,) certified the intent of Congress that the water rights and rights of way to which the l 866
7 legislation related were effective not only against the United States but also against its grantees; that anyone
8 who took title to public lands took such title burdened with any easement for water rights or rights of way that
107
9 had been previously acquired against such lands while they were in public ownership.
10
I I Effective January 1 , I 873, water appropriators were given the option under California Civ. Code Sections
12 1410-1422 to file their water claims with the county recorder to preserve pnonty. Such filing officially dated
13 the water right as ofthe filing date. Ifno filing was made, the water right was still valid, but dated back to the
I 4 time the first substantial steps were taken to put the water to beneficial use. These opti6ns remained in effect
15 inCalifomiauntil 1914.
16
I 7 Under the "Desert Land Act" of I 877, (19 Stat. 377; 43 U.S.C. 321 et seq.,) Congress declared that all surplus
I S water of lakes, rivers and other nonnavigable water on public land is free for appropriation by the public,
19 subject to existing rights. (Applicable to California See California Oreoon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland
20 CementCo 295 U.S. 142, 154-155, 160-163,(1935.)
21
22 The California Constitution article XlV, sec. l states: "The use of water now appropriated, or hereaffer to be
23 appropriated, for sale, rental, or distribution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation
24 and control ofthe State, in the manner to be prescribed by law."'08
25
26 In I 9 1 l , under Calif. Stats. of April 8, the California Legislature declared "all water or use of water within the
27 State of California is the property of the people of California." This declaration, in effect, asserted a State
28 reservation to unappropriated "surplus" waters existing as of that date to the State by virtue of its riparian
29 interests in State owned lands.'09
30
3 1 It was not until December 1 9, 1 9 1 4, that the Water Commissions Act, (Calif. Water Code 2774) became law.
32 The act stated that all new appropriations ofsurface water require either a certificate of registration (for small-
33 scale domestic use,) or a permit (leading to a license.) Appropriative water rights subsequent to enactment of
34 the Califbrnia Water Commissions Act on December 19, 1914 were acquired by authority of the State of
35 California through a permitting and licensing of those riparian rights that the "State may have retained by
36 virtue of its ownership of lands bordering upon a stream" which were dedicated to public use under the l 9 i 1
37 statute."0
38
39 Section 1007 of the Civil Code established that a title by prescription, good against all owners of private
40 propeity, could be acquired by adverse occupancy or possession for the period of 5 continuous years (statute
4 l of limitations.) This was ruled applicable to water diversions. (See also Rice v. Meiners 138 Calif. 292, 293,
42 68 Pac. 817, (1902); Turner V. East Side Canal & Tm Co. 169 Calif. 652, 6SS~58, 147 Pac. 579 (1915); &ika
43 Bernardino V. Riverside 186 Calif. 7, 13-14, 198 Pac. 784, (1921).
44
45 APPROPRIATE RIGHT AS AN INVASION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
46
47 In ~x V. Haggin, 69 Calif. 225, 255, 338-339, 417419, 4 Pac. 919, 1984; 10 Pac. 674, (1886) held, on a
48 principle called "absolute te~orial sovereignty," that, whereas the "owner" (for the purposes of disposal), was
49 the U.S., it could control the distribution of unapproprlated waters on public land, even if this abrogated
111
50 riparian rights. It was only until after public land was disposed ofthat riparian rights inhered.
51
52 In Duckworth~v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., (150 Calif. 520, 525, 528-529, 53 1 89 Pac. 338 (1907), the
53 court held that the United States formally consented to the acquirement of appropriative rights on the public
54 domain in the acts of 1 866, 1 870, and 1877 and thereby waived its right to object to the impairrnent of the
55 rights of its public lands in the use of the nonnavigable streams flowing through them. So long as the lands
PAGE 110 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 110
1 remained in Government 6wnership, npanan nghts would not be asse~ed against intending. appropnato~
2 (See also 1922 San Joaguin & Kinos River Canal & lrr. Co. v. Worswick (1922).
)
4 In Duckworth v. Watsonville \Vater & Lioht Co.. 170 Calif. 425, 432, 150 Pac. 58 (1915) It was the opinic..
S ofthe court that the diversion ofwater on public lands if recoo by local la~~s conferred upon the dive~
6 the nparian rights in the stream pe~ining to the United States contiou ous thereto, on the ~ that ~
7 United States by the Act of 1866 granted a part ofthe property in its lands to such diverter.
S
9 In 1921 Holmes v. Nav. 186 Calif. 231, 234-235, 199 Pac. 325, the court interpreted the Act of 1866
10 validating appropriations made on public lands as constituted an invasion ofthe title held by the United St&~
I 1 in riparian lands.
12
13 In San Bernardino v. Riverside. 186 Calif. 7, 29-30, 198 Pac 784 (1921), regarding the amendment to the CivL:
14 Code in 191 I that provided that all water or the use ofwater: within the State ofCalifomia is the propeYl\ ~:
1 5 the people of the State1 the court said; "Taken literally, this would include all the water in the state pnvateQ.
I 6 owned and that' pertaining to the lands of the United States, as well as that owned by the state. It should ncr.
I 7 require discussion or authority to demonstrate that the state cannot in this manner take private property fcr
I S public use...The constitution expressly forbids it...The water that pertained to or was contained in the lands c:
I 9 the state was already the property of the people when this amendment was adopted. The statute was witho~ `
20 effect on any other property."
21
22 In Meridian v. San Francisco, 13 Calif.-2d- 424, 445, 447, 449,
23 90 Pac.-2d- 537; (1939,) the court held that as a result ofthe state constitutional amendment of 1928, exc~-
24 waters in streams above the quantities ofwater to which nparian rights and prior appropriative rights attach ar~
25 public waters ofthe state, stating: "There are "`aters in the rivers and streams ofthe state to which the ripari~
26 right first attaches. The rights ofother lawfiil users on the stream also rightftilly attach. In addition there arc-
27 in many ofthe nvers and streams ofthe state c'reat volumes of~~ater ~~hich pass on unused to the sea or to -.~
28 inland drainage basin. In a real sense the excess water is a great natural resource available for the benefit QE
29 this and fliture generations, as the occasion for its use may arise. These excess waters constitute the publT3L ` -
30 waters ofthe state to be used, regulated and controlled by the state or under its direction."
31
32 On August 4, 1943, the California Water Code went into effect. Section 1201 states ``All water flowino in ~
33 natural channel, excepting so far as it has been or is being applied to useflil and beneficial purposes upon, or `~
34 50 far as it may be reasonably needed for useflil and beneficial purposes upon lands riparian thereto, c~
3S otherwise appropriated, is hereby declared to be public water of the State and subject to appropriation ~
36 accordance with the provisions ofthis code."
37
38 ELEMENTS OF AN APPROPRlATIV~ RIGHT
39
40 (1) Waters available for appropriation include water not yet appropriated that may be found ~
4 1 rivers, streams, lakes or swamps.
42
43 In Duckworth V. Watsonvi~le Water & Light Co., (150 Calif. 520, S25, 528-529, 53 1 89 Pac. 338 (1907) uz
44 was ruled that a wate~~cotir~c may terminate in disch~c to another stream, a swamp, sandy wash or lake. A
45 lake physically connected with a watercoui~e is legally part of it and lake, and stream, are sutjcct ~
46 appropriative rights.
47
48 The court stated: "The right to appropriate "ater under the pmvisions of the Civil Code k not confined u~
49 streams ziziming over public lands ofthe United States. It exists wherever the appropriator can find ~~ter ofa
so stream which has not been appropriated, and in which no other person has or claims superior rights arid
S 1 interests. And the right cannot be disputed except by one who has or claims a superior right or intern and ~
52 him only as far as there is a conflicL It cannot be vicariously contested by another on behalfofthe o'~er c"f
53 the better right."
54
55 (2) Pfiysical control ofthe water is necessary in estabkshing and~ercising an appropri~ri~~e flghL
56
PAGE 111 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
l Y' River Power Co. V. Nevada lIT. Dist. (207 Calif. 521, 525, 279 Pac. 128, (1929) Control ofthe water
2 bv L~ki ppropriative right.
ng it from the source ofsupply is necessa~ in exercisina an a
3 iL Parks Canal and N4inina Co. V. Ho\~, 57 Calif, 44, 46, (1 880) the court affixed that a water right does not
4 a~2ch unless one has acquired control of the water. (See also Yuba River Power Co. V. Nevada lrr. Dist. 207
5 Calif. 521 525, 279 Pac. 128 control of the water by taking it from the source of supply is necessary in
6 exercising an appropriative right; and Bader Gold Mm. Co. V. Oro Electric Corp. 245 Fed. 449, 451452,
7 C.C.A.9th,(1917).
S
9 (3) Upon co~np1etioii of iiecessaiy ~~`ork ~t'ith due diligeuce aud good faiih. priori~' dale of the
I 0 ~propriation relates back to the date offliefirsi act ofpossessioii.
l~ K~llv V. Natoma Water Co., 6 Calif. 105, 108 (1856); [reference to Stark V. Barnes 4 Calif. 412, 413414
I 3 (~ 853)], in regard to the "doctrine of relation" with respect to the acquirement of a water right: *`where a
~ 4 n~~~ber of acts are to be performed, in virtue of which rioht accrues, the time of performance of the last act,
i S when all have been perfonned in good faith, relates back to the commencement of ~e series of acts which
16 ~~te the right, so as to make it perfect when the first act was ~ commenced" (relates back to the first act
I 7 o-:possession but not to the intention to appropriate.) (See Maeris v. Bicknell. (1857).
.5
a 9 I Kimball v. Qearh3rt. 12 Calif. 27, 3 l , (1 859), the court ruled that the mere construction of a ditch with the
0 i.~~ntion of appropriating water from a stream is not sufficient, in itself, to establish a right to the use of such
l w~er. The title is perfected when the appropriation is complete. When completion of the appropriation
necessary
2 occurs, then the priority dates by relation from the beginning of the work, provided that the I 12
erequisites have been fulfllled. (See also 1894 Hewitt V. Storv 64 Fed. 510, 514-515- C.C.A. 9th)
S Z~%ective January 1, 1873, water appropriators were given the option under Califomia Civ. Code Sections
6 I-~l0-1422 to file their water claims with the county recorder to preserve priority. Such filing officially dated
7 L~C water right as ofthe filing date. lfno filing was made, the water right was still valid, but dated back to the
8 t::~e the first substantial steps were taken to put the water to beneficial use. ~ese options remained in effect
29 .~ California until 1914.
30
3 l I?. \Vells V. Mantes. 99 Calif 583, 584, 34 Pac. 324, (1893), the court ruled that an appropriation completed
;~ without complying with the provisions of the Civil Code had priority over one initiated pursuant to the Civil
33 Code, but afier the completion ofthe nonstatutory appropriation.
34
35 l~. Duck~vorth v. \Vatsonville Water & Light Co.. (170 Calif. 425, 432, 150 Pac. 58, (1915), the court stated:
36 It has long been settlcd in this state that an appropriation under the ~ivi1] code divests no existing private
3 7 right, that its effect is merely to give preference over a subsequent appropriator or diverter who takes under no
3 S over right, or title, and to fix the date ofthe posting ofthe notice as the inception ofthe claim under ~
39
40 I.~ ~ai~ht v. Costanich. 184 Calif. 426, 431, 433434, 194 Pac,26; (1920,) on the question as to whether the
4 I Civil Code destroyed the doctrine of relation back for nonstatutory appropriators, the cowl stated: "But the
42 code section by its terms destroys the right of relation back of an appropriator who does not comply with the
43 code, only as to a subsequent appropriator who does. As to all others, his rights are not affected by the code
44 ~ovisions and are to be determined by the law governing the subject of appropriations as it exists
45 i:idependently ofthe code."
46
47 (4) Actions by a downstream user to enjoin an appropriation on the grounds ofimpairment to water
48 ~~hty are subject to pro#or real andsubstantial injury to theproperty interest ofits us~
49 ~ Dripps v. Allison1s Mines Co.. 45 Calif. App. 95, 99, 187 Pac. 448, (1919), the cowl stated: " A prior
50 I.~cator cannot hisist that the stream above him shall not be used by subsequent locators or appropriators for
5 1 lining purpose~s and that the water shall flow to his claim in a state of absolute purity. While the subsequent
52 I~cator will r~ot be petmitted so to conduct his operations as to tinre~sonably interfett with the fair enjoyment
53 of the strear~i by the prior locator, or to destroy or substantially i'~iure the latter's superior rights as a prior
54 locator, nevertheless, the law recogniees the necessity for some deterioration, which, within reasonable limits,
55 is damnum absque injuria. Any other rule might involve an absolute prohibition of the use of all the water of
~ ~ ~ -.~ ~ ~n ~r4er to nreserve the quality of a small portion taken therefrom. The
PAGE 112 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 112
I reasonableness oftiie use is a question for thejuiy, to be determined by them upon the facts and circumstances
2 ofeach particular case.
)
4 GROUNDWATER
5
6 Owners of lands overlying the same supply of percolating water have equal rights therein for use on their
7 overlying lands. I [3 Their rights in the common supply, that is, are `~correlative".' ~ A
8
9 Owners of lands overlying the same supply of percolating waters have equal rights therein for use on their
I 0 overlying lands. [S For beneficial purposes upon or in connection with his overlying land, the holder of the
1 1 right may take such quantity of water as is reasonably necessary [16 . ill
and only that quantity ; provided the
l 2 supply is sufficient ttierefore.118 If the percolating water supply is not sufficient for all overlying lands, each
13 tract is entitled to a reasonable, fair andjust proportionate share ofthe available supply.
14
1 5 The right to make reasonable use ofunderlying water on or in connection with overlying land is limited by the
1 6 legal maxim "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which is expressed in the Civil Code sec. 35 14 as "One
I 7 must so use his own rights as not to infringe upon the rights of another." No one may extract more than such
I 8 reasonable share when the nghts of others are injured thereby. I 19 The principle of reasonable and beneficial
19 use of all waters within California was affirmed by 1928 amendment to the Constitution of the State of
20 California, which denied any right to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water.
2 1 Whenever a landowner exceeds this reasonable use, he is appropriating to himselfffiat which belongs to others
22 who~are entitled to a like use and to that extent is obsrructing the free use ofproperty so as to interfere with its
23 comfortable enjoyment, which is a public nuisance. 120
24
25 The overlying owner is entitled to make this reasonable use of the water according to the custom of this
26 locality, and so long as he does so, others may not complain. 1~l
27
28 TRANSFER OF CONSERVED WATER:
29
30 Under Water Code Section 101 1, conserved water is considered a reasonable beneficial use ofwater and is not
3 1 subject to forfeiture. Amounts conserved through actual reduction in consumptive use, as well as increased
32 efficiencies in water application or transport resulting in reductions of water diverted are considered
33 "conservation" under the code. The continued right to the amount of water conserved may he secured from
34 f~)rfeiture by (I) (for pre-19 14 nghts) a letter noticing the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
35 that water is being conserved; (2) (for post 19 14 rights) reporting under paragaaphs 21 and 22 of a required
36 "Report of Licensee"; or (3) reporting under paragraphs 23 and 24 of a required "Progress Report by
37 Permittee." Required filings under (2) and (3) should mention the fillI extent and amount of the reduction in
3 8 water use.
39
40 As an incentive to conserve water; under Water Code Section 101 1w), the amount conserved may be "sold,
4 ~ leased, exchanged, or otherwisc transfe~ed pursuant to any provision of law ttlatiiig to the transfer ofwater or
42 water rights, including, but not limited to, pmvisions of law governing any cliange in point ofdiv~ion, place
43 ofuse, and purpose ofuse due to taansfer."
44
45 Under Water Code 1707, SWRCB can authorize conversion ofan existing appropriative right into an inst~
46 appropriation to benefit fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial use.
47
48 `The California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-93 (pages 38A2) indi~tes that ptt-1914 appmpriative water
49 right holders ma
y transfer water without seeking approval of the State Water Resources Control Board
50 (SWRCB), p?ovidcd no other legal user of water is injured. Water held pursuant to riparian rights is not
5 l transferable from place to place, although downstream appropriators may contract with riparians to leave
52 water in the stream for potential downstream diversion. (Riparian rights quantified in an adjudication may be
PAGE 113 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februagy 1996 page 113
I transferred if the adjudication permits.) Those with licensed or permitted nghts (appropriations dated I 9 1 4 or
2 later) must obtain SWRCB approval for transfers as they result in a change in terms and conditions of use.
4 Short term (one-year or less) temporary transfers of licensed or permitted rights are exempt from
5 environmental impact assessments under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provided
6 SWRCB approval is obtained. (This approval involves a detennination by SWRCB that there is no ir~jury to
7 other legal users of the water and no unreasonable effect on fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses.)
8 Lonc'-temi trans fers require C~~A compliance.
9
l 0 Transfers of ground water, and ground water substiwtion agreements, (whereby ground water is pumped to
1 l substitute or replace surface water sold by transfer), may be, in some cases, subject to statutory restrictions
I 2 designed to protect ground water basins against long-term overdraft and to preserve local control of ground
I 3 water management.
14
I S Typical transfers (or sales) of water use rights or conserved water are structured so that water is transferred for
I 6 a price while the original holder retains the water right. Several statutes provide that transfers of water do not
1 7 impair or cause forfeiture ofwater rights.
PAGE 114 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
page 114
February 1996
I APPENDIX 8 Customs and Culture Forests and Forest PrQduCts
2
3 The forests and forest products industry figures prominently in Siskiyou County's
4 economic and cultural past. Many ofthe County's cities and towns grew up around
5 sawmills and the employment they provided. The to~vns of Weed, McCloud, Tennant and
6 Hilt were built as "company towns" by lumber companies. Communities within the
7 county rely on the forest products industry for education, roads and basic infrastructure.
8 Past land and resource use offen shapes ftiture land and resource use decisions which
9 affect community stability; therefore, to plan for the fliture it helps to understand the past.
I0
I l The first sawmills were built in I 852 to supply miners and settlers ~vith buildino
12 materiats and used human powered whipsaws. LI.L. Wells states in his "history of
13 Siskiyou County" (circa 1881), "It is said that at Scott Bar there is enough timber under
14 the ground to construct a number oftowns like the one on top." In 1860, there were 30
15 ~wrnills in the County. By 1873, there were four steam pdwered and thirteen water
~6 Qowered sa\vmills in the county producing 3.5 million board feet oflumber and 1 million
17 shingles for local usc.
Is
19 The arrival ofthe railroad to Siskiyou County in 1886 dramatically affected the
20 timber industry. Within several years ofthe coming ofthe railroad, over 45 mills were
21 operating between Dunsmuir and Weed. Siskiyou County's high quality pine timber was
22 used for finished lumber, box shook and finished window sash and doors which were
23 hauled out by rail to distant markets. By 1902, the timber industry exceeded the mininG
24 industry in total employment with 2,300 employed in Siskiyou County. By 1909, the
25 lumber industry was the number one manufacturing industry in the State, both in terms of
26 waoe earners and value ofproduction. Affer introduction ofthe railroad into the Grass
27 and Butte Valleys, which contained vast tracts ofalmost pure pine on flat easily logged
28 land, the number of railroad car loads of logs went from zero in 1 905 to over I 8,000/year
29 in 1928. Over 10 mills operated in this region alone helping to make Siskiyou County the
30 leading county in the State in terms of lumber production during the 1920's.
31
32 The county also benefited from the tax base provided by the large amount of
33 private land. Up until 1 89 1 , public land policy had been committed to transferring the
34 public domain into private ownership. Through various laws, large tracts of timberlarid
35 were bought by lumber companies arid individuals. Lands acquired were those with the
36 highest quality timber arid easiest access. Large land grants to the railroads as wellas to
37 the State schools also transferred land into private ownership. By 1 9 12, the Weed Lumber
38 Co. alone owned 76,000 acres with an assessed value of $390,000.00.
39
40 In accordance with the Forest Reserve Act of 1 89 1 , the Klamath Forest Reserve
4 1 ~vas created in 1 905 from the remaining public domain forest land which had not been
42 transferred to private ownership. Reserves were created in response to public fears over a
43 looming "timber farnine" resulting from the fast paced destructive logging of private
44 timberlands throughout the country. The 1 905 "Use Book" stated, "Forest Reserves are
45 for the purpose of preserving a perpetual supply of timber for home industries, preventing
46 destruction of the forest cover which regulates the flow of streams, arid protecting local
47 residents from the unfair competition in the use of forest arid range. They are patrolled at
PAGE 115 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februaryl996 page 115
1 Government expense, for the benefit ofthe Cornrnuni~ and home builder." Opposition to
2 the creation ofthe Forest Reserves revolved around the loss oflocal control. In response
3 to these concerns, Forest Service policy held that Rese~e timber was to be supplemental
4 to, not competitive with, private timber. Reserve timber was to be made available only to
5 meet local needs and to stabilize local industry. Timber designated for sale had to be
6 appraised, advertised and sold at, or above market value.
7
8 With the crash of 1929 came the end ofmany sawmills, particularly in eastern
9 Siskiyou County. The larger mills: Fruit Growers, Weed Lumber (now Long-Bell), and
10 i\4cCloud River continued operations albeit at a slower pace. A 1939 USFS study
I 1 predicted these mills would be closed in 15 years due to the depletion oftheir timber
12 holdings (2 ofthe 3 are still operating). By the late 19305, there were 37 small circular
13 sa~vmills in Scott and Quartz Valley, each producing 1 to 5,000 bd. ft.Iday- enough
14 income to feed their families.
15
l 6 The post-war housing boom and improving lumber market stimulated interest in
I 7 Klamath Forest timber. Very little timber had been sold prior to the mid l 950's from the
I 8 Forest prompting one Regional Inspection report to state that the Klamath has perhaps the
19 largest single block ofvirgin timber ofany California Forest. Construction of timber
20 access roads were begun on the west side ofthe Forest in 1946. Beginning in 1949, the
2 1 Klamath River Highway was upgraded in order for the County to benefit from the
22 developing logging and lumbering activity in the Happy Camp area.
93
24 In 1 948 the Kiarnath Forest acquired over 32,000 acres of private ground in
25 exchange for timber cutting nghts. The County Board of Supervisors unanimously
26 requested the USFS to acquire all the remaining Southern Pacific sections within the
27 Klamath Forest to assure a long term logging and lumbering economy. By 1 954, there
28 were 4 sawmills and 2 peeler milk in Happy Camp. Scott Valley had 4 mills producing
29 4OMBFIday and 9 mills producing less then 5MBFIday. Other mills were built in Seiad
30 Valley, Horse Creek, Yreka and Salmon River. While private timber harvest continued,
~ I accounting for rouglily halfofthe county's annual timber harvest (see chart), production
32 emphasis shifted t6 the National Forest as the private regrowth matured. For the first
33 tiffle, sawmills were built to mill federal timber instead of private.
35 From the 1940t5 to the mid-i 970's, over 20% ofthe county's employment and
36 90% ofthe county's manufi~cturingjobs were in the 1um~r and wood products industry.
37 Sagging lumber markets and compefition for federal timber by s6uthem Oregon and
3 8 Humboldt County mills resulted in the closure of some mills in the early I 970's. High
39 interest rates of the early 1 980's severely impacted the home-building industry and thus
40 the lumber market. Timber harvest activity plunged and unemployment rose to 18.8%
4 l during the lowest levels ofproduction in 1983.
A ~ ~~cent reducfions in federal timber as a result ofEndangered Species (i.e. spotted
owl) considerations as well as policy changes made in Washington DC have resulted in a
~) drop in federal harvest levels of 89% from 1 986-1 993. Private harvest levels were also
46 affected by the listing of the spotted owl and dropped 50% in the same period.
PAGE 116 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February i996
Timber Harvest in Siskiyou County
i954 i994
LL 400
\ , `
~ ~
100
0~ I I I I I I I I I I I I
54 56 58 60 62 &4 66 68 70 ?2 74 76 71 78 19 80 81 52 53 84 85 86 87 ~ 89 90 92 93
Calendar Year
~TOTAL VOLUME ~ PUBLIC VOLUME ~ PRIVATE VOLUME'
1 For the first time a drop in harvest levels was not related to market conditions or
2 local resource depletion; harvesting declined due to political imperitives. This has
3 resulted in the closure of more mills and the loss of 65% of the County's logging jobs and
4 50% ofits manufacturingjobs from 1989-1994 Under a 1908 Act, 25% ofaI~ money
5 received by the national forests is paid to the County for ffie benefit of public schools and
6 roads. Between 1 977 and 1 993 these payments averaged $6,492,664.60 annually to the
7 County. The reduction of federal harvest levels after years of governrnent assurances of a
8 sustainable level of harvest have left many residents unemployed, angry and be~vildered
9 at their lack of voice in decisions made in Washington D.C. and distant courtro'oms.
10 Having built their economies and livelihoods around promised federal timber
I 1 development, towns such as Happy Camp have seen their custom and culture change
1 2 almost overnight from that of hardwork, prosperity and pride to that of welfare
13 dependency and despair.
14
I 5 Despite these reductions, Siskiyou County is still a leading producer of forest
16 products in California. The forest products industry is still the largest industrial employer,
17 maintains the greatest capital investment and is thc largest tax payer ill the county. The
18 forest products industry remains an integral part ofthe county's industrial in~cture
19 ofsuppliers, services and transportation as it has for over 140 years. The'fact that the
20 County's forests are still producing forest products is testament to the fact that humans
2 1 can and do manage forests wisely for the long term `benefit of bo~
22
23 Addendum
24
25 .*1852~First sawmills built to supply gold miners and settlers.
26 ~ 1 853- B. Johnson builds sawmill on Shackleford Creek in Quartz Valley.
27 ~ 1 854-MeDermit .& Davidson build sawmill in Aetna Mills.
28 ~ 1 857-Oliver & Prevost build sawmill on Kidder Creek near Greenview.
29 *1859~Ross MeCloud builds sawmill in Strawberry Valley near Sisson ~ Shasta).
PAGE 117 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 117
I ~ 1 860-Festus Payne builds water powered circular sawmill on French Creek near Etna.
2 With a daily production rate of5 MBFIday, it is considered the most extensive ofthe 30
3 sawmills now in operation in Siskiyou County.
4 * 1 p73-Of the County's 1 7 sawmills in operation, four are steam powered and 1 3 are water
5 powered. Annual production is 3,5OOMBF oflumber and 1,000,000 million shingles; the
6 majority used locally.
7 * I 877-Shingle factories built at Deetz (near Mt. Shasta) and Keyser.
8 ~ 1 880-Bleven sawinills are in operation at the following locations: 2 in Little Shasta; 2 on
9 the headwaters of the Sacramento River; I between Greenhorn and Cherry Creeks; 1 on
10 Hamblin Gulch near Fort Jones; I at Etna Mills; 1 at Scott Bar; 1 on French Creek; 1 on
l l Dogget Creek near Oak Bar on the Klamath River; 1 on Kidder Creek and 1 on
12 Cottonwood Creek. Annual production is 3,5OOMBF.
`3 * 1886-Southern Pacific completes rail line from Redding to Sisson (Mt Shasta).
14 ~ I 887-Rail line completed to Montague
I 5 ~ I 888-Sisson Mill and Lumber Co. builds sawmill in Sisson (Mt. Shasta). This was sold
16 to Wood and Sheldon Lumber Co. in 1901 who operated a sawmill and logging operation
I 7 in the Box Canyon/Deer Creek (Lake Siskiyou) area. This was sold to Rainbow Mill and
18 Lumber Co. in 1914.
19 1 889-Yreka rail line completed between Montague and Yreka.
20 ~ 1890- Pioneer Box Co. builds box factory near Sisson (Mt. Shasta). In 1928, Pioneer
2 1 merges with Rainbow Mill & Lumber to form Mt. Shasta Pine Manufactunng Co.
22 ~ 1891-13 sawrnillslbox factories operating within 6 miles of Sisson.
23 ~ 1 892-Cantera Lumber Co. builds and operates a sa~vrriill, box factory and logging
24 operation at Cantera on the Sacramento River north of Dunsmuir. Logging conducted in
25 Ney Springs Creek drainage below Castle Lake. Operations ceased in 1917.
26 ~ I 894-27 rail-carloads of sugar pine logs and 1 0 carloads of sugar pine planks exported
2? to England via San Francisco from sawmills near Mott (by Dunsmuir).
28 ~ I 902-Timber industry exceeds the mining industry in total employment; 2,300
29 employed (McCloud River 100; KIamathon 375; Coggins Bros. 175).
30 ~ 1903-Ash Creek sawmill, dry kiln and 4,5OOMBF ofhigh grade lumber bums.
3 1 ~ 1 905-KIamath Forest Reserve created by Theodore Roosevelfs proclarnation.
32 ~ 1908-Kianiath Forest sells 55 Class A Ranger sales and 3 Class B timber sales, mostly
33 to miners. Scott Bar Hydraulic nimes buys largest sale to date: $527.34 of flume timber.
34 * 1 909- Southern Pacific completes rail line from Weed to KIatnath Falls.
35 * 1 9 14-KIamath Forest issues tiniber sale prospectus for 2 billion board feet of tiniber
36 north ofthe Kiamath River between Happy Camp and Hombrook. It would require
37 building a 72 mile rail line from Hombrook to Happy Camp and sawmills on the mouths
38 ofBeaver, Thompson and Indian Creeks. No bids were received.
39 * 1915-4,000 men, 115 the population ofSiskiyou County, are employed by the tiniber
40 industry. 50 sawmills produce 200,OOOMBF annually. 50 billion feet remain to be cut
41 ~ 1918-Fruit Growers purchases 22,OOOMBF ofKIamath Forest timber in Beaver Creek.
42 ~ 1921-Siskiyou county receives $2,278.73 in Kiamath Forest receipts.
43 * 1924-Secretary ofAgriculture sets Kiamath Forest annual harvest limit of 147,OOOMBF.
44 * 1 926-Southern Pacific completes line from Kiamath Falls to Eugene Oregon.
45 * 1 928-Southern Pacific hauls over 1 8,000 car loads of private logs in Siskiyou County.
46 ~ 1 929-Klamath Forest sells I 03 timber sales of less then $500.00 in value and two sales
PAGE 118 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
pag- 118
I ~ 1 93 1 -Klamath Forest sells 92 timber sales all less then SSOOOO in value
2 ~ 1938- Fruit Growers purchases l I,OOOMBF ofKlamath For~t timber in Beaver CrttK
3 * 1939-USFS releases~economic study titled "The Forest Situanon in Siskivou Couns I~
4 predicted that the 4 large mills (Fruit Growers, Long Bell, McCloud River & Associa:-~
5 Box) would all be closed in 15 years. Projected annual vield ofthe Kiamath Forest w-
6 137,OOOMBF.
7 * 1944-J.F. Sharp Lumber Co purchases 2,OOOMBF ofKlarna~ timber in Greenhorn
8 Creek.
9 * 1 945-State of Califdrnia adopts a Forest Practice Act regulating logging on private 1~d
10 ~ 1946-Construction begins on the I 1 mile Humbug Creek timber access road. Openii~~
1 l the area to logging would tap approximately 1OO,OOOMBF oftimber (7~% Govt. 250,c.
I 2 Sharp Lumber) and extend the lumbering payroll in \Treka 8- 1 0 years. A Regional
1 3 General ~tegrating Inspection observed that the Klamath Fon~st has perhaps the larg~
14 single block ofvirgin timber ofany California Forest The Kiarnath Forest returns
Is ~4,OOO.OO in receipts to Siskiyou County.
` 6 ~ 1 947-Kiamath Forest sells 7,8S9MBF of timber and returns S8:800.OO to Siskivou
17 County.
I 8 ~ l 948-Klamath Forest, through a tnpartite land exchanoe, ac ~liires 25.294 acres of
I 9 Southern Pacific land in Russian, Etna, and Beaver Creeks as well as the Carter Mead~ws
20 area. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously requested the Forest
21 Service to acquire all the remaining Southern Pacific Railroad sections ~tiiin the
22 Klamath Forest to assure a long term logging and lumbering economv. The Kiama~ ~
23 acquired 6,900 acres ofSharp Lumber Co. land in Humbug Creek in exchange for nin~r
24 in the same area.
2S ~ 1 949-Construction of timber access roads begun in Grider and Indian Creeks. Plaii~ ~
26 upgrade Klamath River Highway in order for Siskiyou County to benefit from the
27 developing logging and lumbenng activity in the Happy Camp area.
28 ~ l952-Southen~ Pacific Land Co. establishes forest management program of sustains
29 yield.
30 ~ 1 952-Bastlick Mills builds sawmill at Finley Carnp on the Salmon River. Kiamath
3 1 Forest sells S 1 ,OOOMBF and cuts 43,000MB F.
32 ~ 1 953-Small circular sawmills in operation on Grider and Horse Creeks and at Hamburg.
33 * 1 954-Plywood p1st built up Indian Creek. 6 mills are now operating in Happy Camp. 2
34 peeler mills arid 4 sawinills. Timber cut is virtually all federally owne&
35 * 1 955-Sale of salvage timber from tile Haystack, Kidder, Six Mile & 3 Devils fires
36 begitis within 3 weeks ofthe fires being put out. Salvage s~e buyers must pay a
37 replanting charge of$2.3SIMBF and a reseeding charge of$S.O()lacre to prevent erosion
38 oftheland.
39 * 1 960-Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act directs USFS to give equal consideration to
40 recreation, range, timber, water, and fish & wildlife.
4 1 ~ 1 964-Wilderness Act passes, Marble Mountain & Trinity Alps declared wilderness.
42 ~ 1968-Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passes, portions ofthe Salmon, Scott and Kiamath
43 rivers are declared wild and scemc.
44 * 1 969-National Environmental Policy Act is passed requiring Environmental Impact
45 Statements (EIS) to be prepared on federal activities that affect the environment
46 ~ 1 970-California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) passes requiring Environmental
47 Impact Reports to be filed on State actions affecting the environment
PAGE 119 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Febary 1996 page 119
I 1 9~i 1 -State Forest Practice Act found unconstitutional in Bayside vs. San Mateo County.
2 ~ 1 9~~2-Forest Practice Act passed by legislature requiring State approval of private
3 ~g~ng. State Supreme Court holds in Friends of Mammoth vs. Mono County that
4 CEQA applies to private activities were State permit is required.
S ~ 1 97S-ln Natural Resource Defense Council vs. Arcata Redwood Co. the court rules that
6 private timber harvesting must flle an EIR. The legislature declares the Timber Harvest
7 Plan FFHP) is a ttfunctional equivalentt' to an EIR.
8 ~ I 9~/6-National Forest Management Act passed requiring all national forests to prepare
9 Lano and Resource Management Plans which are to be updated every 1 5 years.
I 0 ~ l 9~i~- Siskiyou County receives ~9,62O,53 1 .86 in National Forest Reserve funds.
1 1 ~ I 9&4-Califomia Wilderness Act passes, Russian & Siskiyou wilderness' created.
12 N 1990-Northern Spotted Owl declared a tl~eatened species by US Fish & Wildlife
13 ~ 199 1- US District Judge Dwyer issues an injunction against the Forest Service barring
14 them from awarding timber sales in suitable spotted owl habitat until an EIS outlining
15 stanoards and guidelines to ensure the owls viability is adopted
16 ~ 1 994-Option 9 of the proposed standards and guidelines is adopted. 58% ofthe county's
17 manLf~cturingjobs are in lumber and wood products-630 lessjobs then 1989.
Is
19 Weed Lumber Co.- Abner Weed built a sawmill, box factory and the company town of
20 Weed in 1900. Weed purchased~extensive holdings northeast ofthe Mt. Shasta in the
21 Gras~ Lake area. A rail line was built into these holdings by 1905. A sash and door
22 acto~ was built in 1907 and enlarged in 1914 and produced 2,500 doors and 3,000
23 `.vindqws each day. A plywood factory was built in 191 1 and modernized in 1943. The
24 come town of Tennant was built in 1 92 1 A sawmill at French Creek was also
25 operated. Long Bell Lumber Co. assumed control ofthe company in 1924 and ran it until
26 ~t was sold to International Paper Co. in 1956. In 1959 Weed became incorporated as a
27 oity &~d by I 960 Long Bell had sold the remainino com pany homes and stores. In 1 982
28 tntem~~ational Paper sold the mill to Roseburg Lumber Co. and the land to Fruit Growers.
29 Both ~he land and the mill are still in production today.
30
3 l Klainathon-Klamath River Lumber Co. purchased a tract of Southern Pacific timberland
32 Ln 1 89 1 as well as other parcels totaling 27,000 acres. A sawmill, box factory and a town
33 was built 20 miles down river oftheir holdings on the Klamath River and rail line near
34 Hombrook. Logs were transported to a dry chute which sent them~into the river; then they
35 floated down to Klainatho~ In 1 894, Pioneer Box Co. built a box factory in Kianiathon
36 with a capacity of3OMBFIday. This was purchased from the adjacent mill. In 1902, a fire
37 destroyed the mill, both box factories, 8 million board feet oflumber and most of the
38 town sop. 1,000). The town and mills were never rebuilt. The timberland was sold to
39 ~wo conipanies. Potter & Sons Lumber Co. and Algoma Lumber Co. Algoma operated a
40 ~x factory in Montague.
41
42 ~4cCloud River Lumber Co.- In the early 1 890's, George Scott and William Van Arsdale
43 Durchase a sawmill near Mt Shasta. A box factory and planing mill were built and the
44 ~wmill enlarged. In 1 897, Scott and Van Arsdale purchase a mill on the MeCloud River
45 zs well as adjoining timberland. Rail line into the newly constructed cor~pany town of
46 McCloud is completed in 1 898. After constructing a new sawmill in McCloud, the Mt.
PAGE 120 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 120
I 1OO,OOOMBFIyear and the company employed 1,800 men. A 50 year timber cutting
2 contract was purchased on 25,000 acres ofadjacent land owned by ~ed River Lumber
3 Co. in 1919. This tract was estimated to contain 500,OOON4BF oftimber. McCloud River's
4 sawmill closed in the early 1970's and was sold along with the land to Champion
S International Corp. Champion retrofitted the mill for smaller logs before selling it to P &
6 M Cedar Co. in 1982. The land was sold to John Hancock Life Insurance in 1992. Both
7 the land and the mill are still in production today.
8
9 Fruit Growers Supply Co.-In 1854 a sawmill was built on the West Fork ofCottonwood
10 Creek (near Hombrook) by the Mill & Flu
ming Co. This mill was relocated S miles up
I I the creek in I 864. John Hilt bought the mill in 1 877 and operated it until it was purchased
12 by the Hilt Sugar Pine Co. in 1901. They in turn sold it to Northern California Lumber
13 Co. who obtained financing from Fruit Growers Supply Co. ~en Northern California
14 went into receivership in 1910, Fruit Growers assumed ownership. A new sa~~ill,
15 planino mill and box factory were built at Hilt as well as a company town. The
16 Cottonwood mill was dismantled. A division ofti~e Sunkist Exchange, this mill provided
17 box shook to the California Citrus Growers. In 1915, Fruit Growers expected to log and
18 mill 30,OOOMBF from which they would make over 3 million boxes enough to fill 700
19 train cars By 1934, over 50 miles ofprivate rail lines extended through company land
20 west of Hilt. Contract logs were hauled into Hilt from as far away as Yreka, Gazelle,
21 Castella and Chiloquin Oregon (170 rail miles away). Affer the introduction of cardboard
22 boxes in the 1950's. the Hilt mill turned to milling finished lumber. The sa~vmill was shut
23 down in 1974 Fruit Growers kept their timberland and now sell logs to other mills.
24
2S References
26 *Rails in the Shadow ofMt Shasta, J.A. Signor 1982
27 *The Land ofRemember, J.R. Jones 1971
28 *History of Siskiyou County, H.L. Wells D.J. Stewart & Co. 1881
29 *The US Forest Service- A History, H. Steen 1976
30 *California Timber Harvest 1954-1994 (by County), State Board ofEqualization 1995
3 1 *Saddlebags in Siskiyou, J.R. Jones 1953
32 *Stories ofthe Klamath National Forest- The First 50 Years: 1905-1955, G.W. Davies &
33 F.M. Frarik 1992
34 *5iskiyou County Labor Force and Industry Employment 1972-1994 Employment
35 Development Department
36 *Kl~ath National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and
37 Resource Management Plan 1994
38 *Red River, R.M. Hanft California State Urnversity, Chico 1980
39 *Siskiyou County California, H. French 1915 issued by the Board ofSupervisors & the
40 Panama-Pacific International Exposition Commission of Siskiyou County.
41 *Rod Eastlick- personal communication 1-21-96
42 *Jerry Cone.-personal communication 1 -22-96
43 *Ben Attebery-personal cornrnunication- 1-30-96
44 *Railroad Logging in N.E. Siskiyou County 1900-1956, L. H. Shoup Siskiyou County
45 Historical Society, Siskiyou Pioneer, Vol. 5, No. 10 1987
46
PAGE 121 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 121
I APPENDIX 9 Customs and Culture Recreation and Tourism
2
3 BACkGROUND
4 Recreational activities ha\'e p1a~ed a major role both monetarily and socially
5 in Siskiyou County for many generations. Since the early 1800's, people from
6 all points of the globe have traveled to Siskiyou County to enjoy the beauty
7 and abundant recreational availabilities this county has to offer. This has
8 created a tourism industry which in recent years has become a major
9 segment of the economic base of Siskiyou County.
I0
I I With its varied topographye the vast land expanse and acreage of this county
12 has established a diverse inventory of available recreational opportunities.
13 The central location of Interstate S running north/south1 connecting the
14 Mexican border to the Alcan Highway and ultimately Alaska, is assisted by
15 major east/west ilighways to create a network of corridors supported by the
16 paths1 trails, logging access roads, and motor vebicle roads as described in
1 7 the TRANSPORTATION AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY section of this document. These
Is highways and by~vays have made available, to a large segment of the
19 population and citizens of the United States, a nucleus of natural and
20 man-made recreational and entertainment opportunities. Extreme care must
21 be exercised tq protect the access to the recreational areas of Siskiyou County
22 tO assure the continued benefit to the economic base of the county.
23
24 HIkING/CLIMBING AND RECREA TIONAL SNO W ACTIVITIES
25 In the southern part of the county, climbing and hiking activities date back to
26 the first recorded ascent of Mount Shasta in 18S4 by an eight (8) man party
27 led by Captain E. D. Pearce of Yreka. In 1916, the city of Mount Shasta paid for
28 a toboggan slide on Orem Street in the dowiito~vn area to provide recreation
29 and entertainment to the local citizens, as well as visiting tourists. In 1930
30 there was a community toboggan slide created on Spring Hill at the base of
3 1 Mount Shasta and the Snowman's Hill ski area was established as one of the
32 first in the nation. In 1933 four (4) ski jumps were installed, the largest being
33 the "A" jump (now known as the 100 meter). In 1932-33, a rope tow was
34 installed on Snowman's Hill which attracted Olympic competitors from the
35 entire nation for practice sessions. In 1957 Roger Hines and Audry Handley
36 placed a rQpe tow at Bunny Flat on the slopes of Mount Shasta to
37 accommodate expanded skiing opportunities. In 1957 local investors created
38 the Ski Bowl, a ski facility permitted by the United States Forest Service. The
39 Everrit Memorial Highway was paved for the benefit of all visitors to the ski
40 facility. In 1985 the United States Forest Service issued a permit to
41 re-establish the onginal Ski Bowl as the Mount Shasta Ski Area on the slopes
42 of Mount Shasta. Also in 1985, the Mount Shasta Ski Park was established and
43 continues to operate.
44
45 FISHING
46 In 1946 it was reported that sport fishing on the Kiamath River was
47 flounshin~ with as many as 20 fishermen using the same pool or eddy and all
PAGE 122 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 12:
1 indicated other rivers in Siskiyou County receiving heavy sport fishing traffic
~ as ~veI1, including, but not limited to, the McCloud, Sacrarnento, Scott and
) Salmon Rivers. In the 1980's the Sacramento River ~~7as rated as one of the top
4 100 fisiling streams in the United States. Over 50 years of stream and lake
S trout planting by the California Department of Fish and Game have assured a
6 continual recreational opportunity to anglers and families from the entire
7 county. However, recent restrictive management practices have adversely
8 affected this much sought after form of leisure activity and the attendant
9 tourism industry ~vith its economic benefit to the county.
10
I I CAMPING AND HUNTING
12 In 1907 the Siskiyou County Clerk's office was selling hunting licenses for
13 51.00. By the year 1907, hunting had become a grand pursuit by both locals
14 and tourists. In 1923, the Kiamath River Highway was completed ~\~~ch
Is opened additional attractions to tourists, campers, hunters and anglers. The
16 end of the year showed a large increase of recreational visitors. Subtotals
17 indicated 18,839 people with 7,802 using campgrounds. Development on *1
Is campgrounds included, but were not limited to, Bluff Creek, Spring Flat,
19 Finley Camp or Idlewild and Perch Creek.
20
21 RECR~ONAL ATTRACTIONS TO SISKIYOU COUNTY: The list of attractions
22 and attributes that entice a large segment of tourists to Siskivo u County each
23 year include, but are not limited to:
24
25 Cantara Loop
26 Captain Jack's Stronghold
27 Castle Crags State Park
28 College of the Siskiyous
29 Elk Herds
30 E\'cursion trains
31 Forests
32 Glaciers
33 Glass Mountain
34 Headwaters of the Sacramento River
35 Historic Homes/buildings
36 Horseradish Factory
37 Lakes
38 Largest free-standing mountain in the United States
39 Largest gold display south of Alaska
40 Lava Beds National Monument
41 Living Memorial Sculpture Garden
42 LumberMills
43 Military Pass
44 Mountain Wilderness Areas
45 Mountains
46 Museums
47 Northern.California's Oldest Fish Hatchery
48 Pacific Crest Trail
49 Pacific Flyway
50 Petroglyphs
51 Rivers
PAGE 123 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
Februay 1996 page 123
I Sisson Callahan Trail
2 SFlasta Abbey
Ski Facilities
4 SodaSpnngs
5 Start of the 4can Highway
6 &tephiens Pass Earthquake Area
7 ~trea~s
8 Waterfalls
9
10 ?£C~ONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND POSSIBILITIES: The list of recreational
I I rid entertainment possibilities available to the local citizen and visitor to
12 Stskiyou County includes1 but is not linuted to:
13
14 `Jlimal packing commercial, non-commercial
15 D~ackpackin~
16 3tcyciiiig
17 Dtrd~~tchi~~
18 3Oatin~-- can oe, drift, k~yaking, motorized, patio, sail
19 3owlu~~
20 DUnw; ]umpJi~g
21 amping -- developed and undeveloped
22 *2hris~mas tree cutting
23 Zhmbtng -- niountain, rock
24 ~irnn~ -- va~ed cuisine, culture and nations
25 Iques~nan a~tivities, rodeos, rides, etc.
ice, lakes, streams and rivers
26 T-LSIiiD~ -- flv
27 T-~ora & fauna -- observation and collection
28 -lying -- airplanes, hang-gliding, gkders, hot air ballooning
29 3-Orest by-products gathering (moss, lichen, burls)
30 C~th~~ng -- berries, herbs, nuts, plants
3' 2~lf~~
32 Guided Tours -- anirnal, auto, foot, motorcoach,
33 hikin~~g -- trails, cross country
34 ~untiflg -- fowl, mainrnal
35 Ice skating
36 `~fushroorrii~g
37 \finingaridparining
38 Painting artistry, drawing
39 Picriiddflg
40 Photography
41 ?~afting commercial, non-commercial
42 ?~acquetball
43 ?~epelling
44 P~ock hounding
45 Sightseeing hatcheries, historic, museums, n~sc. points of interest
46 Siding cross country, downhll, snow,~snow boarding, water
47 S~owmobilin~
48 \flowplay
49 Spelunking
50 SquareDancing
51 S;VImmm~g
PAGE 124 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 124
I Trapping
2 ~Vindsurfing
3 Wood cutting and gathering
4
S Ai\NUALEVENTS:
6
7 Almual events which enhance the tourism economic base in Siskiyou County
8 include, but are not limited to:
9
10 Chnst~as holiday celebrations
I I Dunsmuir Railfare
12 Edgewood Flea Market
`3 Happy Camp Bigfoot Jamboree
14 Kiamath River Blackberry Festival
Is McCloud Flea Market
16 McC~ud Forest Festival Jr
17 McCloud Lumberjack Fiesta
18 McCloud Winter Festival
19 Mount Shasta Blackberry & Bluegrass Festival .1
20 Mount Shasta Old Fashioned Fourth of July
21 OldEtnaDays
22 Rodeos in several towns and communities
23 Saint Gcrmaints "I AM" Pageant
24 Siski\ou C
ounty Golden Fair
25 Tirirnan Race
26 Tulelake Butte Valley Fair
27 Tulelake Waterfowl Festival
28 Weed Carnevale
29 Weeds Chinese Auction
30 Weeds and Wild Flowers Festival
31 Yreka Citywide Sidewalk Sale
32
33 RECI~ON%TOURISM
34 SU~£~~Y:
3S
36 Recreation and tourism has been an irnportant part of the history, customs and
37 culture of Sisidyou County for many generations. It is constantly changing and
38 reflecting the evolution of the enterta'nrnent needs of the population of the
39 United States. Any attempt by any agency to alter, restrict, or control
40 recreational activity within the county could have devastating effects upon the
41 peoples and economic base~of Siskiyou County.
PAGE 125 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 125
I APPENDIX 10 Customs and Oulturn Transportation and Rights-
2 of-way
3 BACkGROUND:
4 In the debate over mineral legislation that occurred in Session I of the 39th Congress of I 866, Congressman
5 George Julian of Indiana, then Chair of the Public Lands Committee of the House, favored subdivision and
6 sale of mineral lands at auction to pay the war debt, with some ~ restrictions to prevent monopoly and
7 ensure ordinary claimants some opportunity to purchase the land.
8
9 Senator William Stewart of Nevada, however, favored a ratification of the status quo, wi~ additional
10 inducement ofgiving the successful miner fee-simple title at a nominal price. He introduced a bill on the floor
1 l ofthe Senate statino ``All there is in this bill is a simple confi~ation ofthc existing conditions of~ings in the
12 mining regions, ~ eve rything where it was, endorsing the mining rules. It simply adopts and perfects the
I 3 existing system allowing these people to enjoy their property without being subject to the fluctuation created
1.4 now by agitations in Congress."
15
I 6 The Senate passed the bill, but Congressman Julian buried it in his House committee. Stewart countered by
I 7 amending the contents of a House passed bill on rights-of-way across public lands with his mining bill and
I 8 pushed it through the Senate. It was returned to the House Committee on Mines and Mining instead of the
19 Public Lands Committee and passed the House as the Act ofJuly 26. 1866 (U.S. Statutes at Large, XIV, pgs.
20 251-253. or "An Act granting the Ri?ht ofWay to Ditch and Canal Owners over the Public Lands. and for
21 other Purposes."
22
23 The integration of Stewart's two original pieces of legislation on rights~fway and mining into the Act #JUlY
24 26, J866, (also known as the "Lode Act",) provided a broad contextual basis for the Congressional reco~ition
25 of the vesting of various possessory rights on public lands as had been obtained under local customs and
26 laws. 122
27
PAGE 126 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 126
I The Act ofiuly 26, 1866 included provisions that "The nght-of-way for the construction of highways over
2 public lands, not reserved for public purposes, is hereby granted.~' (These provisions were later separated from
3 the mineral and water use provisions as R.S 2477.)
4
S In California, State law recognizes both informal prescnptive creation by customary use by the public and
6 formal action by public authority as sufficient to constitute the acceptance ofa right-of-way and dedication as
7 a''publichighwav'' l~3 [n Ball v Stephens. 158 P. 2d 207 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945), citing Pol. Code Section 2618
8 as reenacted in 1883 and in force until 1935, established that "Acceptance ofthe offer ofthe government could
9 be manifested and dedication could be effected by selection of a route and its establishment as a highway by
10 public authonty. Dedication could also be effected without action by the state or county, by the laying out of a
I I road and i~ use by the public sufficient in law to constitute acceptance by the public ofan offer of dedication.
12 In order ~at a road should become a public highway, it must be established in accordance with the law ofthe
13 state in ~vhich it is located."'24 25
14
IS It should be specially noted that according to California la~w, the "public" may manifest acceptance of
16 the U.S. offer of a right~ofway over public lands just by laying out a road and using it The process
I 7 requires no action by the state or county.
18
19 In 1870, under the "Placer Act" or U.S. Mining Law amended July 9, 1870, (vol. 16 Statutes at Large p.217;
20 U.S.C. vol 30, section 35,) Congress also clarified that it was its intent that the water rights and rightsnf-way
2 1 to which the I 866 legislation related were effective not only against the United States but also against its
22 grantees; that anyone who took title to public lands took such title burdened with any easement for water
23 rights or riglits of way that had bc~n previously acquired against such lands while they were in public
24 ownership.
25
26 Ln 1873, the portiori of the body of federal Mining ILaw applicable to rights~f-way for the oonstniction of
27 highways ov~~r public lands was separated from the historic context of the original Acts and reenacted as
28 Revised Statute (R~S.) 2477. In 1938, it was recodified as 43 U.S.C. Section 932)126
PAGE 127 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 127
2 The Mining Law of 1866 applied the free-access principle to `all mineral lands ofthe public domain. ~e
3 1872 Mining Law changed this to "all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States. In
4 numerous cases decided both before and afier the period I 866- 1 872, the courts had held that the public
5 domain" embraced only lands available for disposal under the various disposal laws - that is, those areas not
6 withdrawn from disposal and reserved by the federal oovemment for other uses.'27
7
S In Siskiyou Countv, the Modoc National Forest was created on Nov. 29, 1 904. The Klamath National Forest
9 was, in large part, created on May 6, 1905; the Trinity National Forest on April 26, 1905; the Shasta National
I 0 Forest on October 3. 1 905; the Upper Klamath Wildlife Reflige on April 3, 1 928' (with additions on Feb.26,
~ I 1954); the Lower Klamath Wildlife Reftige on Aug. 8, 1908 (with reductions on May 14, 1915 and March 28,
~ 2 1 92 1 ); Lava Beds National Monument in I 925 (transferred to National Park status in 1 933); and the Tule Lake
\.~ational \k~ildlife Refuge was created Oct. 4, 1928 (enlarged in 1932 and 1936 and reduced in 1942.) I~s 129
I 6 These , , . ~vould correspond to the dates in which these lands were withdrawn or reserved from
I 7 L~e public domain and the dates that the free access otfer of the Mining Law of l 866 or ~S. 2477 ceased to
l 8 apply. However, public rights-of-way that had been established prior to withdrawal or reservation became
I 9 grandfatnered as vested rights.
0
2 1 ROTE: Activities tilat do not ordinarily cause any appreciable distrrrbance or damage to public
~ lards resources or improvements have been generally designated as "casual use" by federal agencies and have
23 not normally requieed a right~f-way giant or temporary-use permit. Traditionally, this has included foot
24 traffic and use ofpack anirnak or horses. Off-highway vehicle use may also be included generally as posted.
25 However, current management trends appear to be moving toward more restrictive control and permitting
6 requirements.
-I
28 There is an irnplied right of reasonable access for those engaged in valid uses of public lands and for "in-
29 holders" of private lands. This includes patented and unpatented mining claims, gr~ing allotments or other
30 permitted use. Court decisions have upheld agency requirements for helicopter access to Wildemess mining
l claims, and there are many local incidences of helicopter logging. So, mode of access may be specified for
2 access. Route~of
access may also be specified for resource concerns. Season of access may also be specified,
3 as has been done to protect spotted owl nesting habitat.
5 Grazers currently require a trailing permit to move cattle overland to allotrnents and Ratigeland Reform
6 proposes to charge them a fee for forage consurned along the ~vay.)
PAGE 128 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
page 128
2
3 There is some unresolved question as to whether the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 withdrew lands from public
4 domain into grazing districts. 131 It appears not, as the Act states; "...in order to promote th highest use of
5 public lands pending its final disposal ....) The 1 866 Mining Act and ~S.2477 were repealed with the Federal
6 Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) on October 21 1976, but under 43 U.S.C. s 1769, all rights of
7 way that existed on the date ofrepeal were expressly preserved.
8
9 DEFINITION OFA "H1GHWAY~':
`I
10 The dictionary defines a "highway' as a road or route to some end destination. The criteria for the conditions
l l that constitute the establishment of a "highway" necessarily vary from era to era. Certainly. pre-European
12 Native Americans in Siskiyou County travelled by foot or by boat. Cenrunes of use ofdcer tracesi foot trails
13 established seasonal migratory paths and trade routes be~veen tribes across prairies, along riverslsrreams,
14 through the forest and across mountains, which are evidenced by remnant artifacts constructed ofmaterials not
1 S native to an area
16
I 7 Many ofthese same historic trails, such as the Siskiyou Trail, were later used by Russian, Hudson Bay Co. and
I 8 Rocky Mountain Fur Co. tra
pping parties in the early nineteenth centur)'. (Peter Skene Ogden, lean Baptiste
I 9 McKay, John Work, Alexander McLeod, Jedediali Smith, Michel La Framboise, Stephen ~ and Thomas
20 McKay were known to have trapped the county and there was a perrnanent settlement at Squaw Valley.)
2 1 Early explorers such as LL George Emmons (as part of the Wilkes expedition), John Fremont and Kit Carson
22 passed through the county along the trails that were the highways ofthat e~
23
24 As the original Indian and trapping trails were used and re-used, by foot, mule, horse and cattle, tiley
25 compacted and became broader. As wagons passed over sod, the way became compacted in defined ruts. In
26 many cases, very little preparation of the trail was preformed. The public sirnply established permanent
27 passage as a highway and Widened it through repeated ~ 132
28
PAGE 129 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 199G page 129
I [t was really not until the era ofestablished communities that cleanng and preparation ofthe path was required
2 in order to accommodate the easy passage of freight wagons and stagecoaches to central points of commerce.
4 These conditions continued as the general status quo well into the 20th century in many parts of the West.
5 Most motor vehicle roads were not even started in the county until the late 1 920s and many overlay earlier
6 routes.'~3
7
8 Transportation via horseback is still a common practice among ranchers and recreationalists in Siskiyou
9 County. According to the Annual Report of Estimated Crop and Livestock Production of the Year Endina
I 0 December 3 1 . I 994 issued by the Siskiyou County Department of Agriculture, there are an estimated 13,500
I I horses and mules in the county with a human population of 46,426 and a cattle population of 84,500. It is
I 2 obvious that there is a large equestrian population. The era of access and transportation that exists in Siskiyou
13 County today is a mixture
of prepared motor vehicle roads, (most of which are gravel and dirt,) traditional
14 trails that have evolved from continued public use, ~ access roads and four ~~heel drive paths similar to
I 5 the pioneer wagon wheel rutted roads of the I 850s.
16
I 7 These are the realities of our "highways" in the context of our culture. They include main equestrian routes
I 8 and footpaths to some end destination such as a pasture, mountain cabin, lake or fire lookout; foot paths used
19 by hikers along old Indian and mining trails that branch off the main Pacific Crest ~~il or end at lakes or
20 mountain summits; dirt roads to access timber stands for harvest; or 4-wheel drive ruts over former foot or
2 1 horse paths to hunting grounds or mining claims. (Please see the allached paper enUded "HISTORIC
22 REi~ERE?~~CES TO OLD TRAILS~ ROADS. & RAILROADS In SISKIYOU COUN71~~ `~
23
24 ABANDONMENT & STATUTE OF UMITATIONS FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE:
25 (From pg. 15 ofthe Draft R.S.2477 Report ofMarch I 9~
26
27 "Current policy and case law do not recognize any form of Federal provision for abandonment of ~S. 2477
28 rights of way. In the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity, no one, including State and local
PAGE 130 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996 page 130
I governments, may challenge the title ofthe United States to Federal property. In recognition ofthis, Congress
2 passed a quiet-title statute that now appears at 43 U.S~C. Section 2409a. It allows those who have been put on
3 notice ti)at the United States has a claim adverse to their prope[~y, interest to file a law suit to quiet-title.
4 However, the statute also provides that quiet-title action must be filed within 12 years ofthe date the affected
S pare discovers the Federal claim R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are easements and1 therefore, interests in land
6 subject to the quiet title statute. Ifthey are not acted upon within 12 years ofthe date the Federal GovemrnenL
7 takes action that is consistent with their existence, then arguably, they are gone whether they existed in the firs's
S place or not. This would be true where Congress established a wilderness area, where BLM desionated an
9 area as a Wildemess Study Area, or where the U.S. Forest Service blocked off a former right~f-way and no
i 0 one had acted on it for over 12 years."
I I Conclusions
1?
I 3 All existing public roads and trails in Siskiyou County are an integral part ofSiskiyou Countv's infrastnicture.
14 Plans for changino alterino eliminatina.or othe~vise rnodi~ing any public roads or trails or their access has
I S the potential for impacting infrastructure and thus community stability, thereby requiring coordination.
I 6 HISTORIC REFERENCE TO OLD TRAILS, ROADS AND RAILROADS IN
17 SISKIYOUGOUNTY
Is
1 9 There are many historic references to old traik, wagon roads, stage roads and railroads acr6ss the public
20 domain lands in Siskiyou County that were established and developed prior to the federal reservation and
2 l management of lands within the Couny.37 The following is a catalogue of some of the reference dates for
22 these public rights~of-way as documented in various historic texts and notations as to early maps:
37 1904: Nov. 29, Modoc National Forest created.
1905: April 26, Trinity National Forest created. May 6, Kiarriath National Forest created. June 2, L~sen
National Forest created. Oct. 3,' Shasta National Forest created.
Febni~ry 13, 1909 Kianiath National Forest Proclamation No. 3 added about 22 sections to the Goosenest
BallMountain area. The KNF made this a separate Ranger District.
The Upper Kiamath Wildlife Reftige was created on April 3, 1928 with additions oti Feb. 26, 1954; the
~wer Kiamath Wildlifc Reftige was created on Aug. 8, 1908 with reductions on May 14, 1915 arid March
28, 1921; the Tule L~e Nafional Wildlife Reflige was created Oct. 4, 1928 and enlarged in 1932 and 1936
and reduced in 1942.
There is som'e unresolved question as to whether the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 withdrew lands from
public domain into grazing districts. It appears not as the Act states, "...in order to promote the highest use
of public lands pending its f~ disposal....)
PAGE 131 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
page 131
February 1996
2 1827-1828 or 1829-1830 and 1833: Military Pass Sheep Rock Trail
4 1 828: Trapping trail tlirough the Pass of the Siskivou over the ford across the Kiamath River near Klamathon
5 known as `Six Caillouxit
6
7 (prior to) I $33: The California to Oregon Sacramento River Trap.
8
9 1837: The Siskiyou Trail to Oregon was travelled by Ewing Young.
10
I 1 1843-1844: John C. Fremont, guided by Kit Carson, mapped, surveyed and charted trappers nails, publicizing
I 2 maps ofthe western territory in his report. Fremont may have crossed Siskiyou County to enter Nevada.
13
14 1846: The Apple~ate or Southern Emiorant Trail, said to pass two miles ftom Butte Valley
IS
l 6 1 84849: The trail from the east Apple~ate Trail diverted near Goose Lake, sour to the gold fields.
17
l 8 1 850s: One of the main trails to Oregon began at Fort Reading and wonned its way through the mountains.
I 9 crossed Scott Mountain, continued north along Scott i~ver on the east side of \Vheelock's trading post in Ft.
20 Jones, then followed Cherry Creek or McAdarnas Creek northward to Deadwood, then to Thompson's D~
2 l Diggings in Yreka. It also connected with the Scott Bar Trail.
22
23 1 850s: Deadwood, on the junction of Deadwood and Cherry Creeks was a stop on the California -Oregon
24 stage line.
25
26 1 85 1 A trail from coast was cut to the Klamath River and up its course. Large rocks had to be removed, river
27 points cut away and trees thrown across streams for bridges. The River was crossed by a toll ferry nin by
28 Captain Thompson.
29
30 1 85 1 Early gold seekers from the south traveled through the Trinity Trail route over Trinity and Scott
3 1 mountains into Scott Valley, and on to Yreka Creek, Greenhorn and Cottonwood Creeks.
32
33 1 85 1 Most merchandise was packed in from Trinidad on the coast ~y way of Kerbyville and Jacksonville,
34 Ore.,); from Shasta over Trinity and Scott Mountains; or by the 5acramento Trail.
35
36 1 85 1 : One or two steam paddle boats connected Sacramento with Colusa once or twice a week. These were
37 met by stages and freight teams to haul passengers and freight to Shasta City. Pack trains averaging 3060
38 mules hauled from Shasta to Yreka.
39
40 1 85 l Steele operated an express from FL Jones to Scott Bar with goods and beef. Later, an express line from
4 1 Scott Bar to Yreka and Sacramento was started and taken over by Cram, Rogers & Co.
42
43 (cirta) 1852: Mule pack trains brought supplies into Forks of Salmon and later ran between Etria and Sawyers
44 Bar. A mule pack train ran from the coast to Bestville, below Sawyers Bar.
45
46 1 852: The YrekaTrail branched left from the Applegate Trail just west of die divide between Willow Creek
47 and gird's Landing on Lower Kiamath Lake and southwest ofthe latter place. Tuming southward it followed
48 up Willow Creek some four miles to Willow Springs, passing in route a place later to become the Van
49 Bnrnrn~er ranch...Thence the trail ran southwesterly across Red Rock Valley to cross Butte Creek near the
50 present day Southern Pacific siding of Kegg. Continuing southerly through the Orr Lake gap, the old trail
S 1 passl along t~e southern shores of Gi~iss Lake and around the south base of Sheep Rock where the old
52 trappcr~ trail;coming down from MilitaryPass was mtersected~ The trail then took a northwesterly cow~e pass
S3 the old Snelling place, later the Herd and now the Coonrod inch, to divide within a few miles, with one
54 . branch leading to Little Shasta and the other to Yreka.
55
PAGE 132 Show Image
Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land & Resource Management Plan
February 1996
I 1852: a party ofmen under the leadership ofWilliam H. Nobles lefi Shasta City (west ofRedding) scouted out
2 a new emigrant route to the Humbolt River called uNobles Cut-Qf~'. They met a party of23 men from Yreka
3 heading east to St. Louis. Nobles cut-off ~tumed from the Appl~~ate Trail at Black Rock, continued
4 southwesterly to Susanville, crossed the Sierms north ofMt. Lassen, and entered the Upper Sacramento Valley
S near Redding. A later branch offNobles_Cut-Offcross[ed] Pit River near Fall River Mills and entered Shas~
6 Valley via the Militarv Pass Trail.
7
8 1 852: A minister making his way from old Shasta over the Swift Creek Trail from old Shasta (Trinity County)
9 Sunrise Pass- past Big Flat and Abrarns Trading Post into Siskiyou County became lost in a snow storm and
10 froze to death. When they found the body they named the mountain `~Preacher's Peak."
ii
12 l854:Eddv'sM~p
13
4
14 1854: Many ofthe California stage lines merged into the California Stage Company and shortly afier, steamers
I 5 merged into the California Steam Navigation Company. Hugh Slicer brought ~vo Concord coaches to Yreka
16 and began a stageline from Yreka through Scott Valley to Callahan Ranch. A train of saddle animals
17 connected from that point to Shasta City. McLaughlin and Comb began a stage line north from Shasta City in
18 May.
19
20 1 8S4: Road completed from Scott Valley to Yreka. Also a toll road as built over Scott Mountain.
21
22 1 854: A road connected ~e Ohio House in Scott Valley with Aetna Mills. Near the Ohio House, the main
23 trail branched off~ crosses the Scott River (near Young's Dam) and continued through the foothills to Aetna
24 Mills. Then it crossed over the Salmon Mountains. Ohio House was a stao stop on the California Oregon
2S ~eRoaduntil 1871.
26
27 1 854: Callahan was a stage stop. It was known as Callahan Ranch, Callahan, Callahan's and Callahan9s Ranch.
28
29 1 854: Ross McCloud, surveyor and miner, purchased a squatter;s right on the Soda Springs property from the
30 Lockhart Brothers, and built a camp and trail to serve pack trains from Shasta to Yreka.
31
32 1855: The State Legislature authorized Hugh Slicer and others to construct a road from Sacramento Valley to
33 Yrek~ By late summer loaded wagons passed over the route, "the Lockhart Wagon Road." from Red Bluffto
34 Yreka and back. 9
3S