Carson River Chronology

Introduction

The Carson River Basin encompasses an area of approximately 3,966 square miles (2,538,230 acres)⁽¹⁾ in the states of California and Nevada. The basin stretches in a generally north and then northeast direction from its headwaters located south of the Lake Tahoe Basin and just north of Sonora Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to its terminus in the Nevada desert. The Carson River Basin lies south of the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins⁽²⁾ and north of the Walker River Basin.⁽³⁾ The upper portion of the Carson River Basin, which is drained by the Carson River's East and West forks, is mostly contained within Alpine County, which forms part of California's North Lahontan Hydrologic Region of California.⁽⁴⁾ The Carson River's two forks merge in the northern part of Carson Valley, located in Douglas County, Nevada, and form the Carson River mainstem, which then continues on towards the river system's terminus in the Carson Sink. Of the Carson River Basin's total surface area, approximately 606 square miles (387,840 acres), or just over 15 percent lie within the State of California, while the remaining 3,360 square miles (2,149,680 acres), or almost 85 percent, lie within the State of Nevada.⁽⁵⁾ [See Table 1, Nevada Hydrographic Areas in the Carson River Basin, for a description of the hydrographic areas and sub-areas contained within the Nevada portion of the Carson River Basin.]

Similar to the adjacent Truckee River Basin and the Walker River Basin, the vast majority of the Carson River Basin's surface area, and certainly most of its demands for water resources, lie within the State of Nevada. However, most of the basin's precipitation and high alpine storage reservoirs are located in the State of California.⁽⁶⁾ Not surprisingly, this extreme geographic separation between the Carson River Basin's principal supply of water and its principal demands for water has tended to exacerbate some of the controversies surrounding the rights to, and the uses of, water resources within the Carson River Basin and shared between these two states.

According to the California-Nevada Interstate Compact, approved by the respective state legislatures in September 1970 (California) and March 1971 (Nevada), Nevada is entitled to 80 percent of the additional (future) yields developed within the Carson River Basin (i.e., new water yields in excess of those required to satisfy existing beneficial uses), with the remaining 20 percent belonging to the State of California. This interstate compact also specifically states that the waters of the Carson River shall not be used in areas outside the Carson River Basin. Although this compact was never ratified by Congress, thereby making it law, its terms have been enforced through a "gentlemen's agreement" and individual state legislative action.⁽⁷⁾ Furthermore, many of the provisions of this compact pertaining to the allocation of the waters of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee and Carson rivers have been incorporated into the 1990 Negotiated Settlement Act (Public Law 101-618).⁽⁸⁾

While flowing a relatively short 184 miles from the headwaters of its East Fork, located below Sonora Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Carson River has experienced more than its share of controversy and holds the dubious distinction of being the cause of the longest-running litigation (1925-1980, 55 years) over water rights adjudication ever waged by the United States Government against private interests.⁽⁹⁾ Ultimately, water rights issues with respect to the Carson River were adjudicated through the Alpine Decree, initially filed on May 11, 1925 (United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al.), and issued on October 28, 1980.⁽¹⁰⁾ Even so, major issues still remain relative to interstate water rights in the Carson River Basin and the failure to secure Congressional approval of the California-Nevada Interstate Compact.

A Hydrologic Overview of the Carson River Basin

Major hydrologic characteristics of the upper Carson River Basin include the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which serve as the basin's primary source of precipitation, snowpack, and runoff, a number of relatively small high alpine lakes and reservoirs, the East and West forks of the Carson River,⁽¹¹⁾ which merge on the west side of the Carson Valley, the Carson Valley agricultural area, consisting of approximately 35,000 acres of irrigated farmland,⁽¹²⁾ the mainstem Carson River running through the northern portion of Carson Valley and, to the north, Eagle Valley, containing the state's capitol, Carson City. The lower Carson River Basin may be considered as beginning at the head of Dayton Valley and ending at the furthermost extent of the Carson Sink (Desert). This portion of the basin includes Dayton Valley, which was the location of extensive milling and ore processing operations during the days of the Comstock in the late 1800s, and below that the Carson Plains. Also included in the lower Carson River Basin is Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, the Truckee Canal linking the Truckee River Basin to the Carson River Basin, and below Lahontan Dam, the Carson Diversion Dam and the Newlands Irrigation Project, and ultimately the basin's terminus consisting of the Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink (Desert). The basin's terminus represents an extensive area possessing a number of diverse and distinct hydrologic, geologic, and geographic features.

The geology of the Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink and Desert is quite varied and complicated, but most generally it represents the bottom of an ancient lake that experienced a number of periods of deep lake waters and complete desiccation. As a result of those successive stages of filling and drying, as much as 8,000 feet of sediment has been deposited in this area with a average thickness of about 3,000 feet.⁽¹³⁾ During the Late Wisconsin glacial age, a period lasting from approximately 75,000 to 10,000 years ago, this area encompassing Lahontan Valley and Carson Desert periodically constituted the largest of the seven major sub-basins making up the ancient Ice Age Lake Lahontan.⁽¹⁴⁾ At its peak surface elevation of 4,380 feet above mean sea level (MSL), which occurred some 65,000 years ago,⁽¹⁵⁾ Lake Lahontan covered approximately 8,655 square miles of northwestern Nevada, attained a maximum depth at Pyramid Lake of 886 feet⁽¹⁶⁾ and covered the Lahontan Valley wetlands to a maximum depth of about 700 feet where the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge now exists.⁽¹⁷⁾

The present-day Lahontan Valley and Carson Desert, now considerably drier than during the late Wisconsin Age, possesses of a number of important and varied hydrologic features including lakes, marshes and wetlands, cultivated farmlands and pastures, barren desert sinks, alkali flats and playas. The entire lower basin extends in a generally north by northeast direction. In length, the basin extends approximately 56 miles from the Carson Lake and Pasture area in the south to the Carson Sink in the north. In width, the basin extends about 28 miles from the Carson Diversion Dam on the lower Carson River in the west to the Stillwater Point Reservoir in the east. In the upper northwest corner of this expanse, the Carson Sink is hydrologically connected to the Humboldt River Basin via the Humboldt River and the Humboldt Slough. Realistically, however, waters would enter the Carson Sink from the Humboldt River Basin via this connection only during extremely wet years.⁽¹⁸⁾

As compared to today, early explorers and travelers through this area were no doubt faced with far more extreme variations in hydrologic conditions when Lahontan Valley and the lower Carson River Basin received the full, unimpeded, uncontrolled, and highly seasonal flows of the Carson River. In 1882, I.C. Russell, who undertook early hydrologic studies of Nevada's western watersheds for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), reported the Lahontan Valley to be covered by water up to 40 square miles.⁽¹⁹⁾ Another early visitor to this area in 1898 described the Carson Sink as "...half shallow lake, half tule swamp which extends for 20 miles along the valley bottom and furnishes enough salt grass, sedges, and tules to winter many thousands head of stock, and a breeding ground for great numbers of water and shore birds."⁽²⁰⁾ As recently as September 1984, the Carson Sink received inflows of almost one-half million acre-feet⁽²¹⁾ as a result of the wettest year on record (1983), thereby temporarily creating a lake with a surface area of over 330 square miles (212,000 acres), making it for a time the largest body of water in Nevada.⁽²²⁾

In those early years of exploration in the lower Carson River Basin, the hydrologic conditions within the Lahontan Valley were subject to change quickly and dramatically. With scant natural precipitation (approximately 5 inches per year) and rates of evaporation of up to 70 inches per year (recorded at Fallon, Nevada),⁽²³⁾ the land became subject to considerable climatic and hydrologic change during the course of a year. Uncontrolled spring runoffs would temporarily inundate large portions of the Lahontan Valley, providing important wetland habitat for numerous animal species, particularly migrating waterfowl. However, after the spring run-off subsided, except during only the wettest of years, the extreme lower portions of the Lahontan Valley took on a much different appearance, namely that of the Carson Sink and the Forty-Mile Desert. This inhospitable expanse of barren wasteland and alkali salt flats, stretching essentially from the last waters of the Humboldt River and the Humboldt Sink (Lake) to the last waters of the Carson River constituted a serious impediment to early overland explorers and emigrants on their already arduous journey to reach California during the mid-1800s.

Table 1, Nevada Hydrographic Areas in the Carson River Basin, shows the general characteristics and features of the hydrographic areas and sub-areas, along with related counties and principal cities, of the Nevada portion of the Carson River Basin, also designated as Nevada Hydrographic Region [or Basin] Number 8, one of 14 designated groundwater basin located within the State of Nevada.⁽²⁴⁾

Table 1--Nevada Hydrographic Areas in the Carson River Basin

Hydrographic Areas and Sub-Areas by County, Surface Area, and Area Number [Basins Listed in General Upstream to Downstream Order]

¹ Includes only those hydrographic areas and sub-areas within the State of Nevada.

Source: Nevada Hydrographic Basin Statistical Summary, Office of the State Engineer, Nevada Division of Water Resources, and the Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, 1988.

Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink (Desert)

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the southern portion of Lahontan Valley was dominated by the Carson Lake, which covered up to 20 percent of the Churchill Valley Hydrographic Area (see Table 1). One of the first official government reports about this area was written by Edward W. Kern, who led a detachment of John C. Frémont's 1845 expedition past the Carson Lake. Kern specifically described the Carson Lake as a "very pretty sheet of water, about 11 miles long, bound on the west by a low range of mountains [the Dead Camel Mountain range]. About mid-way on the west side a stream enters it."⁽²⁵⁾ The stream could only have been the Carson River and indicated that prior to the winter of 1861-1862, the course of the Carson River turned south at Ragtown, entered the Carson Lake on its northwest side, and then exited from its northeast corner, flowing north and into the Carson Sink through the Stillwater Slough. In early 1862, however, a high spring runoff (freshet) opened an old channel of the Carson River, which led east directly to the Carson Sink.⁽²⁶⁾ Although reportedly efforts were made to divert the Carson River back to its original course, this was not entirely successful, and flows into Carson Lake generally subsided thereafter,⁽²⁷⁾ eventually reducing the lake from nearly 100 square miles (64,000 acres) observed in 1845 to less than 1,500 acres (2.3 square miles) by 1994.⁽²⁸⁾

Extensive irrigation below Lahontan Dam on Newlands Project farmlands around the City of Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada, has tended to alter the natural flows to the wetland areas further downstream and modified the hydrologic characteristics of the Lahontan Valley, tending to raise local water tables and requiring irrigation drainage systems. In addition, much of the water now reaching these wetland areas and the sink beyond consists of agricultural drainage (return flows). These waters tend to contain high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) which, in addition to salts, also consist of potentially harmful and naturally-occurring constituents as lithium, selenium, mercury, and arsenic.⁽²⁹⁾

Water quality issues within the Lahontan Valley wetlands became a major environmental issue in late 1986 and early 1987 when state and federal wildlife biologists reported a massive die off of fish near the mouth of the lower Carson River in the Carson Sink, which forms a part of the Fallon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Inflows to these wetland areas from the 1983 record high water year flushed numerous fish and considerable quantities of salts and other constituents into the lake that covered much of the Carson Sink. An unusual combination of high evaporation and freezing conditions quickly produced intolerably high concentrations of harmful dissolved solids, resulting in high rates of fish mortality. In addition to estimates of over seven million fish deaths due to rising TDS concentrations, the congregation of feeding birds facilitated an outbreak of avian cholera which killed approximately 1,500 aquatic birds.⁽³⁰⁾ While these events may be reasonably expected to naturally occur periodically for such basin terminus locations, the extreme conditions in 1986 and 1987 were exacerbated due to the especially high flows and the "cleansing" effects these extreme discharges had on the project's agricultural drainage system.⁽³¹⁾

The Lower Carson River Basin and the Newlands Irrigation Project

The major hydrologic feature of the lower Carson River Basin is Lahontan Valley and, within this vast expanse, the Newlands Irrigation Project. This project not only has critical importance to the Carson River's hydrology, but is also of particular importance to the Truckee River Basin due to its use of those waters as well. This reclamation project was authorized through passage of the National Reclamation Act of 1902, which was enacted as a means to reclaim arid desert lands and promote settlement in the sparsely-populated western states. Earlier attempts to encourage western settlement, e.g., Homestead Act (1862), Desert Land Entry (Desert Land) Act (1877), and the Carey Act (1894), had made the land available, but had not provided the necessary water to insure the lands' successful development for agriculture.

The Reclamation Act of 1902 was intended to overcome this water supply shortfall. With respect to the Newlands Project (originally named the Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project), initial estimates of the project's potential irrigable acreage tended to far exceed reality. Early "official" estimates of potential irrigable lands in the Lahontan Valley ranged from 400,000-500,000 acres.⁽³²⁾ However, these impressive figures would be successively reduced as reality set in both with respect to the water actually available for irrigation and the quality of the soils to be irrigated. Immediately after passage of the Reclamation Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), and its newly independent (from the USGS) U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS), attempted to secure the stored waters in Lake Tahoe in the Truckee River Basin, intending to bring those waters to the Lahontan Valley and the lower Carson River Basin by means of an interlinking canal taking off from the lower Truckee River above Wadsworth and running along the western side of Lahontan Valley to a point along the Carson River above the project's irrigated farmlands.⁽³³⁾ By 1910, an average of 240,000 acre-feet per year was being diverted from the Truckee River for this reclamation project in the lower Carson River Basin.⁽³⁴⁾

By 1926, when the USDI formally turned over the management of the Newlands Project to the newly-created Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), the maximum acreage to be irrigated within the project was set at a more realistic 74,500 acres, and the maximum water diversion, using the waters from both the Carson and Truckee rivers, was established at 406,000 acre-feet per year.⁽³⁵⁾ Eventually, however, the salinity of the soil on project farmlands and limited available water supplies would further reduce the Newlands Project's irrigable acreage to 60,000-65,000 acres.⁽³⁶⁾ Today, project water diversions total approximately 320,000 acre-feet per year based on water-righted acreage to be irrigated, designations of bench and bottom lands,⁽³⁷⁾ and their specific allowable water duties.⁽³⁸⁾ Of this total project water allocation, the amount diverted from the Truckee River has been reduced significantly since the early 1900s. From TCID diversions records, between 1910-1966 approximately 239,700 acre-feet per year were diverted at Derby Dam. Since 1988, this diversion amount has averaged approximately 164,050 acre-feet per year, of which some an average of 128,460 acre-feet per year have reached Lahontan Reservoir in the Carson River Basin.⁽³⁹⁾

In addition to the problems associated with the alkalinity of the soil in Newlands Project, Lahontan Valley farmlands were also initially prone to periodic flooding and saturated soils. Water logging of project farmlands began soon after the start of extensive project irrigation in 1906. By the end of 1918, more than 35,000 acres of land had the water table less than six feet below the ground surface. In 1921 the construction of deep drains was begun, and by the end of 1923 more than 150 miles of open drains existed to carry away both surface waste water from irrigation and subsurface waters. Although additional drainage ditches have been added to the project since that time, the area continues to experience a relatively high water table.⁽⁴⁰⁾

The Newlands Project diversions continue to represent the most significant single withdrawal and use of the Truckee River's waters. Derby Dam, which diverts the waters of the lower Truckee River into the Truckee Canal, was completed in June 1905.⁽⁴¹⁾ Waters from the lower Truckee River began flowing into the Carson River Basin in August 1906 with the completion of the 32.5 mile Truckee Canal.⁽⁴²⁾ At first, Truckee River waters were discharged directly into the lower Carson River. Highly variable stream flows and continued water shortages, particularly late in the growing season, quickly demonstrated the need for a major storage facility on the lower Carson River to better regulate water available to the Lahontan Valley farmlands. It was not until 1915, however, that this was accomplished with the completion of Lahontan Dam and Reservoir. This reservoir has a total storage capacity of approximately 294,000 acre-feet (317,000 acre-feet with flashboards installed).⁽⁴³⁾ Upon completion of Lahontan Dam, the Truckee Canal was re-routed to enter this storage facility.

On December 31, 1926, the USBR (renamed from the USRS in 1923) turned over the management of the Newlands Project to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), an organization of Lahontan Valley farmers organized in 1918 to more vigorously pursue persistent irrigation and drainage problems. By this agreement, the USBR was to deliver to the Newlands Project 406,000 acre-feet of water per year for irrigating a maximum of 74,500 acres.⁽⁴⁴⁾ With the implementation of this 1926 contract, TCID came to assume responsibility for the operation of the Lake Tahoe Dam at the outlet to Lake Tahoe (and the head of the Truckee River) at Tahoe City in Placer County, California, Derby Dam on the lower Truckee River in Washoe County, Nevada, Lahontan Dam on the lower Carson River and, some six miles below Lahontan Dam, the Carson Diversion Dam, both of which are located in Churchill County, Nevada. The Carson Diversion Dam distributes the releases from Lahontan Reservoir into the project's principal "T" (T-Line) and "V" (V-Line) distribution canals. In addition, the project also consists of an extensive array of smaller distribution canals, laterals, and ditches stretching across much of Lahontan Valley.⁽⁴⁵⁾

According to diversion records, from 1910 through 1966, Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam averaged approximately 239,700 acre-feet per year.⁽⁴⁶⁾ In 1967, the USBR eliminated the diversion of Truckee River waters solely for power generation at the Lahontan Dam power plant,⁽⁴⁷⁾ a situation that had existed since the plant's completion in 1915. This action had a dramatic effect on future Truckee River diversions to the project. Since 1967, Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam have average 181,720 acre-feet per year, an average reduction of nearly 24 percent.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Beginning in 1988, the USBR implemented a new water allocation method for project farmlands ("maximum allowable diversion"), which, along with higher conveyance efficiency targets and Lahontan storage targets, further reduced annual Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam to approximately 164,050 acre-feet per year.⁽⁴⁹⁾ This latter period also coincided with the most severe recorded drought period in the history of the Truckee and Carson River basins.

Today, the Newlands Project consists of approximately 73,000 water-righted acres of which about 59,800 acres are actually irrigated. The project is divided into two areas. The Truckee Division consists of some 4,000 irrigated acres and includes the Fernley, Hazen, and Swingle Bench areas and is serviced directly from the Truckee Canal (i.e., Truckee River water only). The Carson Division consists of approximately 55,700 irrigated acres including the Stillwater, Stillwater Indian Reservation, Fallon, Island, and Sheckler areas serviced below Lahontan Dam (served by both Carson and Truckee River waters).⁽⁵⁰⁾

Table 2, Selected Truckee River and Truckee Canal Flows (Discharges), presents flows and differences in flows of the lower Truckee River waters above and below Derby Dam and above and below the Newlands Project's Truckee Division along the Truckee Canal. While these differences may provide a general indication of the actual level of these respective diversions, further explanation should be made with respect to this presentation. First, "average" annual flows and corresponding rates of flow for these gaging stations have be calculated over a comparable period of the water years (October 1st through September 30th) 1973 through 1995. Second, due to the distances involved, differences above and below Derby Dam on the Truckee River, as well as above and below the Truckee Division on the Truckee Canal, reflect not only the water diversions at these points, but also river and canal losses due to evaporation, seepage, and phreatophyte⁽⁵¹⁾ usage between the specific gaging station locations.⁽⁵²⁾

Table 2--Selected Truckee River and Truckee Canal Flows (Runoff)

Average Flow Volumes are for the 1973-1995 Comparable Period of Record Average Annual Runoff Measured in Acre-Feet [Rates of Flow in Cubic Feet per Second]^a

^a Gaging station flows or flow volumes are based on average annual rates of flow in [bracketed] cubic feet per second (cfs). Bolded figures above these rates of flow measures show the average annual corresponding runoff volumes in acre-feet. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons. As a conversion measure between the rate of flow and the total runoff, a continuous rate of flow of one cubic foot per second is equivalent to a total runoff volume of approximately 723.97 acre-feet per year.

^b Flows, rates of flow, and differences for the average of the 1973-1994 water years are based on a comparable period of record. It should be noted that these differences reflect not only the water diversions associated with these points, but also stream and canal losses due to evaporation, seepage, and phreatophytes between the specific gaging station locations.

* Not relevant; difference represents different periods of record (1992 and 1931).

Gaging Station Notes:
¹ For complete years of record 1909-1995 average equals 542,980 acre-feet (750 cfs); High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1931.
² For complete years of record 1973-1995 average equals 565,420 acre-feet (781 cfs); High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1992.
³ For complete years of record 1918-1995 average equals 269,320 acre-feet (372 cfs); High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1931.
⁴ For complete years of record 1967-1995 average equals 181,720 acre-feet (251 cfs); High water year: 1978; Low water year: 1983.
⁵ For complete years of record 1967-1995 average equals 135,380 acre-feet (187 cfs); High water year: 1978; Low water year: 1983.

Source: Water Resources Data, Nevada, various issues, Nevada District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada.

Recordings of the Truckee River Farad gaging station, located just upstream from the California-Nevada border, are used to measure the Truckee River's waters actually entering the State of Nevada. Based on the figures presented in Table 2, it may be seen that during the water years of 1973-1995, approximately 66 percent of the average annual discharge of Truckee River waters entering the State of Nevada and recorded at the USGS Farad gaging station (551,110 acre-feet) near the California-Nevada state line were available in the river below Derby Dam (362,420 acre-feet). Not shown in this table, over this same period of time, the Nixon gaging station at Pyramid Lake recorded average annual inflows of 397,650 acre-feet, indicating that of the average Truckee River flows entering Nevada, over 72 percent actually made it to Pyramid Lake.

Other major hydrologic features within Lahontan Valley include the Fallon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),⁽⁵³⁾ Stillwater NWR,⁽⁵⁴⁾ Nevada's Stillwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA),⁽⁵⁵⁾ Carson Lake and Pasture,⁽⁵⁶⁾ and the river's terminus, the Carson Sink (Playa) and Desert. Currently, a program is underway to transfer water rights from willing sellers in the Newlands Project for wetland restoration in the Stillwater NWR and Carson Lake and Pasture. It is the intent of the USDI and its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Nevada to purchase sufficient water from project water-right holders (willing sellers) in order to maintain up to 25,000 acres of wetland in the Lahontan Valley.⁽⁵⁷⁾ Future water purchases may also be made to keep water in the lower Truckee River below Derby Dam for the preservation of the endangered and threatened fish species in Pyramid Lake.⁽⁵⁸⁾ These water-acquisition programs represent a serious threat to Churchill County's agriculturally-dependent economy. While the program targets "willing sellers," the loss of agricultural water rights and productive land is destined to seriously disrupt other water users and dramatically alter the lower Carson River Basin's hydrologic and socioeconomic conditions.

The Newlands Project--An Economic Mainstay of Churchill County

While controversy continues to surround the Newlands Project with respect to its sources of water, the project's efficiency,⁽⁵⁹⁾ and the water quality of its return flows, few could deny the extensive and pervasive economic benefits that this reclamation project has provided to the Churchill County economy since its inception. In terms of economic importance, agriculture's impact upon the Churchill County economy ranks only second to the contribution made by the Fallon Naval Air Station (NAS) to local employment, incomes, and spending. Farm marketings from the sale of the country's agricultural products provide revenues of over $30 million per year, making it the fourth most important agricultural-producing county in the state.⁽⁶⁰⁾ Furthermore, due to the export nature of many of these agriculture sales from Churchill County's farms, the revenues from farm marketings provide a healthy infusion of new capital into the county's economy, thereby multiplying its direct impact on local economic activity.⁽⁶¹⁾

Statistical and correlation analysis studies undertaken by the Nevada Division of Water Planning⁽⁶²⁾ have clearly shown a high degree of economic "insulation" and the relative stability shown by the Churchill County economy. This "avoidance" of many of the adverse effects from external economic influences (i.e., regional and national business cycles and interest rate trends), further attests to the stabilizing influences provided by Churchill County's farming sector to the overall county economy. Admittedly, a significant portion of these beneficial influences must also be attributed to the presence of the Fallon NAS, an influence which recently expanded in the spring of 1996 with the relocation of the Navy's Tactical Weapons School ("Top Gun") from Mirimar NAS, located near San Diego, California.

As an example of the relative importance of agriculture to the Churchill County economy, while the county's population comprises only 1.4 percent of Nevada's total population,⁽⁶³⁾ Churchill County's approximately 542 farms account for 18 percent of all farming units in the State of Nevada. Also, while containing only 4.4 percent of the state's total land area and 3.7 percent of its total land in farms, Churchill County accounts for over 8 percent of all irrigated farmland in the state. More importantly, Churchill County's 8 percent share of the state's total irrigated farmland produces a disproportionate 12.9 percent of the state's total farm marketings, thereby attesting to the suitability and productiveness of the region.⁽⁶⁴⁾

Throughout this century, farming, ranching, and agriculture have been an integral part of the Churchill County economy and a fundamental way of life for many of the residents of this area. It has been the crucial importance of this industry, as well as the rural lifestyle it has fostered, that has made issues pertaining to the preservation of existing agricultural water rights and the maintenance of a healthy agricultural sector, so sensitive to the local population.

To some degree, this area has become the victim of vastly changing federal priorities. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, extensive federal western land settlement programs and seemingly endless reclamation efforts were pursued to bring water and settlement to arid western lands and thereby increase the economic productivity and social benefits of the resources of these areas. The Homestead Act (1862), the Desert Land Act (1877), the Carey Act (1894), and the Reclamation Act (1902) all provided clear testament to the federal government's commitment to this pursuit. In Churchill County these efforts have largely been a notable success.

Furthermore, based on the passage of the 1902 Reclamation Act and the subsequent approval of the Truckee-Carson (Newlands) Irrigation Project, the federal government, on behalf of these early Churchill County farmers, aggressively litigated and secured sufficient water rights to establish and maintain a viable agriculture industry. Specifically, on March 30, 1913, the federal government initiated a suit (United States v. Orr Ditch Water Company, et al.) on behalf of Newlands Project farmers against virtually all Nevada water users on the Truckee River. By means of this suit and the resultant 1944 Orr Ditch Decree, the farmers were provided, under Claim 3, the right to divert up to 1,500 cubic feet per second of Truckee River water at Derby Dam (although nominal canal capacity is 900 cubic feet per second). Later, on May 11, 1925, the federal government initiated a similar suit (United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al.) in which they filed a claim to waters of the Carson River for storage in Lahontan Reservoir to be used by project farmers. From this suit, the 1980 Alpine Decree granted the Newlands Project landowners the right to specific water duties, to be satisfied from both the Carson and Truckee rivers.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, a new environmental awareness overtook the nation and marked the beginning of a break with past developmental policies. Federal legislation with respect to environmental priorities (1969 National Environmental Policy Act), the plight of endangered and threatened species (1966 Endangered Species Preservation Act, 1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act, and 1973 Endangered Species Act), and mounting concerns over the rights of native-Americans, have come to reflect a new federal mandate and a new direction for national priorities and policies.

These changes in national priorities, no doubt, represent changes that are both confusing and disturbing to the vested agriculture interests in Churchill County. As a result of these altered national priorities, apparent federal "abandonment" to their needs, and growing attempts to curtail agriculture water use in the lower Carson River Basin, local governments, the business community, and agriculture interests formed of the Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance (LVEA) in October 1993. Importantly, this action represented a recognition by highly diverse, and yet integrated interests in the Lahontan Valley that water is inextricably tied to virtually all facets of human endeavor in this region. Only time will tell if a lasting solution can be reached whereby environmental, agricultural, and economic interests can co-exist and share the limited waters of the Carson and Truckee River basins.

Carson River Flows (Runoff) and Rates of Flow

Table 3, Selected Carson River Gaging Station Flows (Runoff), presents average annual flows, or total runoff, in acre-feet per year (based on annualized rates of flow in cubic feet per second) for specific river flow conditions at specific gaging station locations for various periods of record through water year 1995 (October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995). It should be noted that in accordance with recent Newlands Project Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP), water diversions from the lower Truckee River are typically at their lowest when flows in the Carson River are at their highest. This is reflected by the differences appearing in this table between the Carson River's Fort Churchill gage and the river's gage below Lahontan Reservoir, which reflects both Carson River flows and those Truckee River flows entering Lahontan Reservoir via the Truckee Canal. Consequently, during normal and low water years, runoff is greater below Lahontan Dam than above it, reflecting the addition of Truckee River waters.

Table 3--Selected Carson River Gaging Station Flows (Runoff)

^a Gaging station flows or runoff volumes are based on average annual rates of flow in [bracketed] cubic feet per second (cfs). Bolded figures above these rates of flow measures show the average annual corresponding runoff volumes in acre-feet. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons. As a conversion measure between the rate of flow and the total discharge, a continuous rate of flow of one cubic foot per second is equivalent to a total runoff of approximately 723.97 acre-feet per year.

Gaging Station Notes:
¹ For years of record 1960-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1977.
² For years of record 1901-1995; High water year: 1907; Low water year: 1977.
³ For years of record 1974-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1977.
⁴ For years of record 1940-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1977.
⁵ For years of record 1911-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1977.
⁶ For years of record 1967-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1992.
⁷ For years of record 1985-1995; High water year: 1986; Low water year: 1992. (In 1983, before this period of record, it was estimated that nearly 500,000 acre-feet flowed into the Carson Sink. However, some of this inflow to the Carson Sink also came from the lower Humboldt River via the Humboldt Sink and the Humboldt Slough.)
⁸ For years of record 1991-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1992.
⁹ For years of record 1991-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1992.

Source: Water Resources Data, Nevada, Water Year 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-95-1, Nevada District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Carson City, Nevada, 1996.

The Carson River--The East Fork

The East Fork of the Carson River is considerably longer than the West Fork as well as considerably larger in terms of its total discharge (annual flow). From its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork near Walley's Hot Springs on the west side of Carson Valley near Genoa in Douglas County, Nevada, the East Fork has traveled a distance of nearly 65 miles. By comparison, from its headwaters to its confluence with the East Fork, the West Fork has traveled only about 33 miles.⁽⁶⁵⁾ The East Fork has recorded an average annual discharge of 255,560 acre-feet⁽⁶⁶⁾ near Markleeville, located in Alpine County, California, where the East Fork exits the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This reflects a volume of approximately 3.2 times the average annual discharge of 79,640 acre-feet⁽⁶⁷⁾ recorded nearby on the Carson River West Fork at Woodfords, also in Alpine County, where the West Fork leaves the Sierra Nevada Mountains.⁽⁶⁸⁾

The East Fork of the Carson River begins high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine County, draining the north slope of Sonora Peak (11,462 feet) and the east slope of Stanislaus Peak (11,220 feet). After flowing 15.2 miles in a generally northerly direction, the East Fork meets Poison Creek. After another 5.8 miles, the East Fork joins with Silver King Creek at the south end of Silver King Valley. Silver King Creek drains an area just north of Lost Cannon Peak (11,099 feet) and Wells Peak (10,833 feet). The upper reaches of both the East Fork of the Carson River and Silver King Creek drain areas just north of the Walker River Basin's West Fork (West Walker River) drainage area.

After merging with the waters of Silver King Creek, the East Fork flows through Silver King Valley, and 3.2 miles further downstream the East Fork meets the outflow of Bagley Valley. Nearly three miles further along it meets Wolf Creek, and after another 2.6 miles, the waters of Silver Creek enter the waters of the East Fork. Silver Creek has its own extensive drainage area consisting of an area in the southwest portion of the Carson River Basin enclosed by Highland Peak (10,934 feet) and Silver Peak (10,774 feet) on the east, Tryon Peak (10,080 feet) on the south, and Ebbetts Peak (9,211 feet) and Reynolds Peak (9,690 feet) on the west. Along with its own tributary, Nobel Creek, Silver Creek drains Upper Kinney Lake (8,640 feet), Lower Kinney Lake (8,560 feet), and Kinney Reservoir (8,480 feet).

Another 2.5 miles downstream from the confluence with Silver Creek, the Carson River East Fork receives the waters of Monitor Creek, which drains Heenan Lake (7,084 feet) and its tributary, Heenan Creek. Some 3.2 miles further along, the East Fork passes under Hangman's Bridge (which has an interesting history with respect to acquiring its name),⁽⁶⁹⁾ and then 1.4 miles further downstream the East Fork meets the waters of Markleeville Creek. Markleeville Creek is formed just above Markleeville, California, from the confluence of Pleasant Valley Creek and Hot Springs Creek. Hot Springs Creek drains Hot Springs Valley, and above that, Burnside Lake (8,080 feet) and Charity Valley Creek, which originates just to the east of The Nipple (9,340 feet). Along the way, Hot Springs Creek also picks up a number of smaller tributaries to include Spratt Creek, Musser and Jarvis Creek, Shay Creek, and Sawmill Creek, the latter creek originating just below Markleeville Peak (9,417 feet).

Pleasant Valley Creek, the other major tributary of Markleeville Creek, drains Pleasant Valley and, above that, Raymond Lake (8,760 feet), which is located just below Raymond Peak (10,011 feet). Further to the west, Pleasant Valley Creek also drains Lower Sunset Lake (7,680 feet), Hellhole Lake (7,800 feet), and Tamarack Lake (7,840 feet).

Almost nine miles downstream from where Markleeville Creek joins the East Fork, the river crosses the California-Nevada state line, and just over one mile downstream from the state line the waters of the Carson River East Fork receive the waters of Bryant Creek. Bryant Creek drains an extensive area in the eastern part of the Carson River Basin north of Monitor Pass and Leviathan Peak (8,963 feet) to include the major tributaries of Leviathan Creek, Mountaineer Creek, Poison Creek, and (the ephemeral)⁽⁷⁰⁾ Barney Riley Creek, all of which are located within California. Leviathan Creek's waters are seasonally affected by toxic acid mine drainage⁽⁷¹⁾ and other dissolved minerals leeching from the Leviathan Mine site. High spring runoff tends to cause evaporation ponds to overflow, spilling toxic substances into Leviathan and Bryant Creeks. The Leviathan mine site⁽⁷²⁾ is located nine miles above the Carson River's East Fork and approximately 1.5 miles above the confluence of Leviathan and Mountaineer creeks, which together form Bryant Creek.⁽⁷³⁾

Pollution of the waters of Leviathan Creek and Bryant Creek first became evident shortly after 1952⁽⁷⁴⁾ when the Isabell Construction Company, which was employed by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, removed some 22 million tons of the overburden from this mining site and dumped the waste, which contained large quantities of low-grade sulfur ore, into three dump or "spoil" sites, one of which was the Leviathan Creek canyon. The Leviathan Creek canyon dump site covered 26 acres to a depth of more than 130 feet. Subsequently, in April 1954 and November 1959, releases of large amounts of acid mine drainage into Leviathan Creek resulted in extensive fish kills in Leviathan and Bryant creeks, and as far as ten miles down the East Fork of the Carson River below the entry of Bryant Creek.⁽⁷⁵⁾

Monitoring data taken between 1954-1975 showed significant mining impacts to water quality in this area in the form of high metal and sulfate concentrations, and low pH (acidic) and low dissolved oxygen concentrations⁽⁷⁶⁾ in Leviathan and Bryant creeks. During this same testing period, iron and arsenic concentrations were found to exceed U.S. Public Health Service 1962 Drinking Water Standards seven miles downstream from the mine. Also during this study, no fish were found in Leviathan or Bryant creeks between the mine and the Carson River East Fork, a distance of some nine miles. The State of California purchased the Leviathan Mine site in 1983 and began an on-going pollution abatement program. A remediation program was begun by the State of California in 1983 and completed in 1985. While considerable success was achieved from these efforts, acid mine drainage remains a problem, particularly during high-flow periods.⁽⁷⁷⁾

Just over 3.5 miles below the mouth of Bryant Creek, the East Fork arrives at Horseshoe Bend. Approximately one mile to the west lies Mud Lake (5,100 feet), which is fed by a diversion from Indian Creek as well as waters from the Carson River West Fork. Outflows from Indian Creek will eventually join the East Fork 4.2 miles downstream from Horseshoe Bend. Three miles downstream from Horseshoe Bend, the East Fork enters the southern portion of Carson Valley, most of which lies in Douglas County, Nevada. Carson Valley is approximately 22 miles long and nearly 10 miles wide on the valley floor. The valley contains approximately 35,000 acres of irrigated farmland and represents one of the earliest settled and most productive agricultural areas in western Nevada. Water diversions, ditch construction, and ranching and farming began in this valley in the late 1850s and early 1860s. As early as 1860 there was approximately 4,700 acres under irrigation on the East Fork and 3,900 acres were irrigated on the West Fork.⁽⁷⁸⁾

In its course through Carson Valley, the waters of the East Fork are rapidly diminished by extensive irrigation diversions. From its entry into Carson Valley's southern end, the East Fork flows in a generally north by northwest direction for some 11 miles, skirting the valley's principal towns of Minden and Gardnerville to the south and west, and heading towards the western side of the valley, where it eventually joins the Carson River's West Fork at a point approximately one mile northeast of Walley's Hot Springs and less than 1.5 miles southeast of Genoa.

The Carson River--The West Fork

The Carson River West Fork is both shorter and significantly smaller than the East Fork, having only about one-third the average discharge of the East Fork.⁽⁷⁹⁾ Even so, the West Fork tends to have a richer and earlier history than the East Fork due to its strategic location along the major transportation route for the Carson Pass and Luther Pass, which were used by early explorers, miners, and emigrants. These passes through the Sierra Nevada Mountains provided early access to Placerville, California and the placer gold fields (via Luther Pass), as well as providing a direct route to the rich farmlands of California's Central Valley (via Carson Pass).

The origins of the Carson River West Fork begin at the Lost Lakes (Upper or East Lost Lake--8,640 feet, and the Lower or West Lost Lake--8,560 feet) located just below The Nipple (9,340 feet). After flowing just over two miles, the West Fork picks up Forestday Creek and then enters Faith Valley. After another nearly 4.5 miles, the West Fork enters Hope Valley where it picks up Red Lake Creek. Red Lake Creek drains Red Lake (8,840 feet) and Crater Lake (8,160 feet) and the area to the east of Red Lake Peak (10,061 feet). It is recorded that it was from this peak that John C. Frémont, in February 1844, first saw Lake Tahoe lying some 16 miles to the north as he struggled through these snow-covered mountains on his way to Sutter's Fort, located near the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers in present-day Sacramento, California.

Two miles into Hope Valley, the Carson River West Fork merges with Maxwell Creek, which brings with it the waters of Scotts Lake (8,012 feet). Two miles below Maxwell Creek, the West Fork merges with Willow Creek, which comes down from the north just below Freel Peak (10,881 feet) and passes through Horse Meadow. After traveling a total of some five miles through Hope Valley, the West Fork enters the steep West Carson (Woodfords) Canyon where it falls nearly 1,460 feet over a distance of five miles (5.5 percent grade) on its way to the canyon's mouth at Woodfords.⁽⁸⁰⁾ Within the West Carson Canyon, the West Fork picks up a number of smaller tributary streams intermittently flowing from Horsethief Canyon, Hidden Canyon, Deep Canyon, Cloudburst Canyon, Merk Canyon, Acorn Canyon, and Cary Canyon.

Before leaving the West Carson Canyon at Woodfords, the first irrigation ditches take off for irrigating Diamond Valley, a small valley area lying to the south and east between the West and East forks of the Carson River. These diversion ditches include Snowshoe Thompson Ditch No. 1 and No. 2.⁽⁸¹⁾ These ditches also take winter water to Mud Lake via Diamond Valley and Indian Creek.⁽⁸²⁾ From Woodfords, the West Fork travels due east 3.5 miles to where it comes abreast of the townsite of Paynesville (located near the junction of U.S. Route 88 and Foothill Road), at which point it enters the southwest corner of Carson Valley. From this point the West Fork heads practically due north for nearly 14 miles along the western side of Carson Valley towards its confluence with the Carson River East Fork near Walley's Hot Springs.⁽⁸³⁾

To the north of Woodfords and along the Carson Range's eastern slope in Carson Valley, a number of smaller tributary streams and creeks, some of which are either ephemeral or intermittent, drain the steep canyons, subsequently flowing either into the West Fork or into the extensive canal and slough system which cris-crosses the valley's floor. Some of the more prominent of these include (from south to north) the intermittent streams of Stuard and Larson canyons and Fredericksburg Canyon, Luther Creek, flowing from Fay Canyon, and flows from Jobs Canyon, located just to the north of Jobs Peak (10,633 feet), a majestic peak which dominates the Carson Range along the western side of Carson Valley. Sheridan and Barber creeks, which flow into the Park and Bull Slough, also contribute to the valley's water resources, as do the flows from Mott Canyon, Daggett Creek flowing out of Haines Canyon and the Kingsbury Highway (Grade) drainage area, and the creeks flowing out of Genoa Canyon and Sierra Canyon.

To the north of Carson Valley in Eagle Valley (Carson City), tributary streams and creeks empty into this valley as well, also draining the eastern slope of the Carson Range, which borders the Lake Tahoe (Truckee River) drainage basin. Principal streams include Clear Creek, flowing from Spooner Summit (U.S. Highway 50) and Duane Bliss Peak (8,658 feet), as well as Kings Canyon Creek and Ash Creek further to the north, both of which flow into Eagle Valley Creek.⁽⁸⁴⁾

Carson Valley--A Natural Floodplain

Carson Valley is situated along and below an extended section of the steep slope of the eastern face of the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. On the east it is bordered by the Pine Nut Mountains. The valley's surrounding mountains are typically drained by a number of short, steep stream courses which are periodically subject to flood conditions. Carson Valley serves as a natural catchment basin for these water courses and because of its shape and configuration with respect to the surrounding mountains, it serves as a natural floodwater receptacle. Not unexpectedly, with virtually no upstream reservoirs to lessen the impact of inflows, the valley has been subject to a number of damaging floods. On the other hand, this "flood-plain effect" has served the valley well by making its approximately 35,000 acres of irrigated farmland some of the richest and most productive in the state.

In addition to the main river channels of the East and West forks in the southern portion of the valley, and the Carson River mainstem running through the valley's northern portion, Carson Valley is also interlaced with numerous old river channels, locally referred to as sloughs. These channels are particularly prevalent between the East and West forks and at times have served to merge these two forks well before their normal natural convergence in the northwestern portion of the valley southeast of Genoa. During periods of high water flow, these channels, which are subject to blockage, heavy sedimentation, and extensive erosion, fill rapidly and facilitate extensive flooding across the valley's floor. As a result of the limited drainage capacity of this valley, the rated channel flood capacities of both the East and West forks are relatively low. The East Fork's rated flood capacity south of Gardnerville is only 2,500 cubic feet per second and that of the West Fork is only 600 cubic feet per second at Woodfords.

Table 4--Carson River Selected (Gaged) Stream Inflows^a

^a Gaged streams have been listed sequentially by their USGS gaging station numbers.

^b Gaging station flows or runoff volumes are based on average annual rates of flow in [bracketed] cubic feet per second (cfs). Bolded figures above these rates of flow measures show the average annual corresponding runoff volumes in acre-feet. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons. As a conversion measure between the rate of flow and the total runoff, a continuous rate of flow of one cubic foot per second is equivalent to a total runoff volume of approximately 723.97 acre-feet per year.

* Eagle Valley Creek is also fed by Kings Canyon Creek, Ash Canyon Creek, and Vicee Canyon Creek.

Gaging Station Notes:
¹ For years of record 1961-1995; High water year: 1969; Low water year: 1964;
² For years of record 1994-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1995;
³ For years of record 1980-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1994;
⁴ For years of record 1980-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1994;
⁵ For years of record 1989-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1992;
⁶ For years of record 1989-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1991;
⁷ For years of record 1966-1995; High water year: 1969; Low water year: 1994
⁸ For years of record 1948-1995; High water year: 1952; Low water year: 1992;
⁹ For years of record 1976-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1992;
¹⁰ For years of record 1976-1995; High water year: 1983; Low water year: 1992;
¹¹ For years of record 1984-1995; High water year: 1995; Low water year: 1990;
¹² For years of record 1985-1995; High water year: 1986; Low water year: 1991.

Source: Water Resources Data, Nevada, Water Year 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-95-1, Nevada District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Carson City, Nevada, 1996.

As an example of the degree by which the Carson River's East and West forks' flood stages periodically have been exceeded, in 1937 the East Fork flooded with a peak flow of 12,000 cubic feet per second near Gardnerville; during the November-December 1950 flood period the channel reached a peak rate of flow of 13,500 cubic feet per second; and in December 1955 the East Fork's channel attained a peak flow of approximately 14,000 cubic feet per second. Concurrently, on the West Fork at Woodfords, the 1937 flood resulted in a rate of flow of 3,500 cubic feet per second; during the November-December 1950 flood a flow rate of 3,300 cubic feet per second was attained; and during the December 1955 flood, a similar peak rate 3,300 cubic feet per second was measured at Woodfords.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Any floodwater head coming down out of the mountains in excess of the rated channel capacity quickly causes both rivers' main courses to overflow and become bypassed, soon overflowing the sloughs as well and rapidly spreading across the valley's rich farmlands. While acknowledging the oftentimes beneficial effects of spreading flood waters across a floodplain, the raging forks of the Carson River have readily demonstrated an ability to create new channels with frequently damaging results to land, livestock, and infrastructure throughout Carson Valley.

The Carson River--Confluence and Mainstem

After forming the main Carson River from its East and West forks northeast of Walley's Hot Springs and southeast of Genoa, the Carson River heads north and then northeast, crosses U.S. Highway 395 near the historic site of Cradlebaugh's Bridge,⁽⁸⁶⁾ and then exits the Carson Valley by passing between Hot Springs Mountain and Prison Hill. The Carson River then travels north along the eastern edge of Eagle Valley and the present site of Carson City to the old site of Empire City,⁽⁸⁷⁾ where the river turns east and enters the upper end of the relatively narrow Dayton Valley. On its course through this canyon to Dayton, the river drops nearly 240 feet over a distance of just over ten miles. It was along this stretch, due both to the available hydropower and proximity to the Comstock mines to the north, that the mine owners established their ore-processing mills. By 1862 there were 23 stamping mills along this stretch, all run by water power.⁽⁸⁸⁾

At Dayton, located approximately 10.6 miles downstream from Empire City, Gold Canyon joins Dayton Valley and empties into the Carson River. This point on the river marks the location where gold (and not silver) was first discovered in this area in 1852. These early placer miners, unaware at the time of the vast silver riches that lay beneath their modest gold diggings, followed the faint trails of gold up Gold Canyon and, to the northeast, up Sixmile Canyon towards the present site of Virginia City. Later, in 1858, it was discovered that the troublesome blue mud the miners had routinely discarded in their search for gold was rich in silver, valued at over $3,000 per ton. These two canyons would mark the geologic boundaries of one of this nation's richest silver strikes--the Comstock Lode.⁽⁸⁹⁾ Efforts to extract this vast body of silver wealth would begi a period of natural resource exploitation (timber cutting and water diversions) and environmental degradation (deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, arsenic and mercury spills), the effects of which have carried forward to the present day. During the Comstock's peak years of production of 1862-1880, approximately $296,400,000 worth of silver and gold were removed from the deep recesses of its mines. Over its entire active mining period, which lasted from 1857 to 1921, the Comstock yielded $386,346,931 in total mineral production, of which $222,315,814 was in silver, $164,023,917 was gold, and $7,200 was copper and lead.⁽⁹⁰⁾

Below Dayton, the Carson River enters the Carson Plains and continues east for nearly 15 miles to Table Mountain. Just over nine miles downstream from Table Mountain the Carson River meets the Adrian Valley, which enters the lower Carson River valley from the south. The Adrian Valley has special historic significance for both the Carson and Walker River basins and in ancient times it formed a hydrologic linkage between the flow of the Walker River and that of the Carson River. During the Late Wisconsin, or Ice Age, a period lasting from 75,000 to 10,000 years ago, ascending waters from the Ice Age Lake Lahontan would come up this portion of the lower Carson River valley and reach a point on the river just below Dayton (4,380 feet MSL).

Before Lake Lahontan's waters would nearly reach Dayton, however, they would also flow up the Adrian Valley, spilling over the Adrian Pass (4,294 feet) and begin filling the lower Walker River Basin and the Walker Lake sub-basin. It is also believed that during the intervening "interpluvial periods," when Lake Lahontan was in one of its recession phases, the natural course of the Walker River was periodically diverted to a course along the west side of Mason Valley below Yerington, located in Lyon County, Nevada. From there it would flow out of the Walker River Basin through the Adrian Valley to the Carson River, and thereby contribute to the periodic desiccation of Walker Lake.⁽⁹¹⁾ During such times, the Walker River became a tributary of the Carson River and the two basin became hydrologically linked.

Nearly ten miles downstream from the Adrian Valley, the Carson River flows into Lahontan Reservoir (when the reservoir is at its spillway surface elevation of 4,159 feet MSL, corresponding to a reservoir volume of approximately 294,000 acre-feet). Following the contours of this reservoir, the Carson River's bed travels a circuitous 17.4 miles through Lahontan Reservoir to Lahontan Dam, where the waters of the Carson River merge with those of the Truckee River, which have been diverted at Derby Dam and enter Lahontan Reservoir from the north via the Truckee Canal. Six miles below the Lahontan Dam, the Carson River arrives at the Carson Diversion Dam, which marks the beginning of the Lahontan Valley and the primary distribution system regulating the diversion of the Carson River's waters into the principal "T" (T-Line) and "V" (V-Line) canals of the Newlands Project.⁽⁹²⁾ Below this point, the Carson River enters the labyrinth of canals, laterals, and ditches making up the Newlands Project water distribution system, and, except during high flow periods, effectively looses its identity as a river system.

Principal Storage Facilities of the Upper Carson River Basin

Major storage facilities of the upper Carson River Basin, stretching from the Carson Valley to the headwaters of the East and West forks, along with their storage rights and priority dates and water source, are detailed in Table 5, Carson River Upper Basin Reservoirs. River flows and water releases from these lakes and reservoirs are controlled by the federal watermaster in Reno, Nevada (through a deputy watermaster in Carson City), in accordance with specific operating criteria contained in the 1980 Alpine Decree.⁽⁹³⁾ Diversions at Derby Dam on the lower Truckee River, which flow into Lahontan Reservoir via the Truckee Canal, are also controlled by the federal watermaster in accordance with the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree and its incorporated 1935 Truckee River Agreement and 1915 Floriston rates.⁽⁹⁴⁾ In the lower Carson River Basin, releases of stored Carson River and Truckee River waters from Lahontan Reservoir and their diversion at the Carson Diversion Dam are controlled by TCID in accordance with the current OCAP.

Table 5--Carson River Upper Basin Reservoirs

¹ Reservoir capacities are in acre-feet as shown in the 1980 Alpine Decree (United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al.). Actual capacities may differ due to subsequent changes to facilities.

Source: Reprinted courtesy of the CARSON RIVER ATLAS, Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, December 1991, page 18.

The Carson River--Terminus

The Carson River terminates in a geologically varied area consisting of the Lahontan Valley and Carson Sink and Desert. Depending on the time of year and annual precipitation and accumulated snowpack in the upper basin, the hydrologic characteristics of this area can range from an extensive labyrinth of interconnected lakes, marshes, wetlands and aquatic environments to barren, alkali desert and salt flats. The entire basin represents the largest expanse of the ancient Ice Age Lake Lahontan, which during its various highstands over the last 75,000 years attained a peak surface elevation 4,380 feet MSL and covered the Lahontan Valley and Carson Sink to a maximum depth of approximately 700 feet. Geologically, the basin consists of unconsolidated, fine-grained Pleistocene lake and playa deposits, young fan gravels, and prograding delta deposits of Quaternary age.⁽⁹⁵⁾ Maximum depth to bedrock in the valley exceeds 8,000 feet, while the average depth of the sediments filling the basin is about 3,000 feet.⁽⁹⁶⁾

The "rain-shadow" effect of the Carson, Virginia, and Pine Nut mountain ranges of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the west of Lahontan Valley effectively interrupts moisture-laden Pacific storms entering this region and allows little precipitation to fall within the Lahontan Valley. As a testament to the extreme aridity of this area, average annual precipitation is only about five inches, while annual evaporation exceeds sixty inches, an extreme ratio of evaporation to precipitation of over 12 to 1. Before extensive upstream storage and water diversions, the Lahontan Valley was generally inundated in late winter and early spring by the unhindered runoff of the melting snowpack accumulated in the upper reaches of the basin. After this runoff period, a drying pattern would ensue during the remainder of the year until the winter precipitation period commenced again in October-November. This highly seasonal pattern of lower basin inundation and desiccation has been disrupted since the completion of the Newlands Project in the valley in 1903, and particularly after the completion of Lahontan Reservoir in 1915. As a result of these developments, this area has received waters from both the Carson and Truckee rivers on a far more consistent and continual basis. In addition to extending the application of water to the valley's irrigated farmlands, it has also created problems with respect to excessive water logging of soils and, in turn, limited the use of some project lands for agricultural purposes.

Carson River Basin Water-Related Issues

Initial conflicts over the waters in the Carson River Basin began in the early 1860s and precipitated from the competing uses for the waters of the Carson River between the farmers and ranchers in Carson Valley and the Comstock ore processing and milling interests along the river's reach through Dayton Valley below Empire City. The loggers ("wood men") in the upper basin above Carson Valley also had a vested stake in the conflict over the use of the Carson River's waters. However, their interests in undertaking "wood drives" down the river and through Carson Valley were effectively served if the Comstock ore milling operations received sufficient water to operate the numerous stamping (ore-crushing) mills in Dayton Valley. To the miners, logging operations were crucial to their operations, and provided the necessary timbers to shore up the mines, the cord wood to fuel their machinery, operate their lifts and pumps, and run the railroad trains which carried both ore to the mills and supplies to the mines, and the timbers and ties to build the railroads that provided essential freight and transportation services throughout the area.

This period of conflict between the ranchers and mill men, which lasted from the early 1860s through the late 1890s, became especially acrimonious during drought years when the limited flows of the Carson River were generally insufficient to simultaneously meet the needs of both parties. The initial appropriation of water, beginning in the early 1850s for the irrigation of farmlands in Carson Valley, pre-dated that of the mills, which began their operations by the early 1860s. The mill operators, in particular, needed a steady and sufficient year-round instream flow for their stamping mills, whereas the farmers diverted extensive amounts of water both for the irrigation of cultivated fields and to flood new lands in preparation for future planting. While some original irrigated acreage pre-dated (prior appropriation doctrine) the water rights of the mills, and were generally recognized as such by the mill men, the major conflict arose over new lands brought under irrigation after the commencement of the milling operations further downstream. Each new irrigation ditch brought additional land under irrigation and increased the farmers' demands for the river's limited supply of water. It was these added lands and their irrigation ditches that became issues of intense early conflict and controversy on the Carson River. By one source, it was estimated that only 4,700 irrigated acres on the Carson River East Fork and 3,900 acres on the West Fork pre-dated the arrival of the stamping mills. However, by 1866, total irrigated acreage on the East Fork alone had more than doubled to an estimated 10,963 acres.⁽⁹⁷⁾

By 1883 the mill men had instituted a fairly effective, if not somewhat ruthless, means to handle what the mills deemed to be excessive upstream irrigation diversions and thereby insure the survival of both Carson Valley's agricultural industry and the Comstock's milling and mining operations, particularly during low-water years. To effect this, the mines appointed their own "water men" who would travel the entire Carson River system throughout Carson Valley and limit water diversions. For those farmers and ranchers found to be persistently diverting waters in excess of their rightful needs, more drastic actions were sometimes necessary. On such occasions, the water men would break down the diversion dams and block the head of the irrigation ditches, at times being forced to destroy a portion of the ditch altogether.

Despite these seemingly harsh actions, by general consensus the system worked surprisingly well, even for the farmers. On one particular occasion, after the mills recalled their water men and the river's allocations were left up to the Carson Valley farmers alone, it was recorded that the farmers, unable to apportion the river's waters among themselves, requested that the mills' water men return to the valley to perform this beneficial function on a more equitable basis.⁽⁹⁸⁾ Thus the concept (i.e., necessity) for a watermaster for the Carson River was recognized early on. These conflicts eased by the late 1890s as the Comstock era drew to a close, and along with it the mines' needs for hydropower for their stamp mills. Subsequently, for a brief period of time in the late 1890s and early 1900s, Carson Valley's farmers and ranchers had the waters of the Carson River pretty much to themselves.

Conflict over Carson River water rights arose again in the early twentieth century. With the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902 and the commencement of agricultural operations of the Truckee-Carson (Newlands) Irrigation Project beginning in 1905, new demands arose for the Carson River Basin's limited water resources. This controversy arose between two competing groups of agricultural interests at virtually opposite ends of the basin. In addition to growing irrigation demands, there also arose the need for water for municipal and industrial uses, particularly in Carson City (Eagle Valley) and the Minden-Gardnerville (Carson Valley) area.

The original vision of the Truckee-Carson (Newlands) Project never really anticipated using solely the waters of the Carson River for the irrigation of its farmlands in Lahontan Valley. In fact, the stored waters of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River were always considered an important, if not an integral component of the success of this reclamation project. Truckee River waters for the Newlands Project were initially sought in 1913 with the filing of the U.S. v. Orr Ditch Water Company, et al. Eventually, 31 years later these rights would be secured with the issuance of the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree. This adjudication granted the Newlands Project the right to divert up to 1,500 cubic feet per second of Truckee River water at Derby Dam and transport that water via the Truckee Canal to project farmlands in Lahontan Valley. After the completion of Lahontan Dam and Reservoir in 1915, water rights from the Carson River were sought with the 1925 filing of the U.S. v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al. This lawsuit was eventually settled in 1980 through the issuance of the Alpine Decree.

While the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree appeared to settle water rights issues for a while in the Truckee River Basin, dramatic effects on Pyramid Lake soon brought the issue of this interbasin transfer to the forefront once again. The era of litigation over the continued use of Truckee River waters on Newlands Project farmlands would begin in the late 1960s and would initially be based on the "reservation doctrine" (Winters Rights Decision).⁽⁹⁹⁾ By this concept, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe attempted to show that since the reservation's heritage was based on the bounty and viability of the Pyramid Lake and lower Truckee River fisheries and not agriculture, sufficient water rights should have been granted for the restoration and preservation of Pyramid Lake. This approach failed in 1983 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to re-open the Orr Ditch Decree to adjudicate additional water for the Tribe, leaving them the original 30,000 acre-feet per year for irrigation purposes.

With the failure of this approach, the Indian Tribe would begin a new approach, basing its claim for additional Truckee River water rights on the endangerment of a fish in Pyramid Lake. In 1966 the Endangered Species Preservation Act was passed and in the following year the Pyramid Lake cui-ui, an omnivorous lake sucker endemic only to Pyramid Lake and the lower Truckee River, was identified under that act as a fish species in danger of extinction. The cui-ui fish species had figured prominently in the Pyramid Lake Tribe's heritage, in fact, providing for one of these people's earliest names: Kuyuidokado, or cui-ui eaters.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

In February 1967 the U.S. Secretary of the Interior issued the first Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the Newlands Project. The implementation of these operational procedures spawned a series of litigation by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe as to how water was used on project farmlands and what portion of that water should come from the Truckee River Basin. As a consequence of these legal filings, OCAP revisions have attempted to meet the needs of endangered and threatened fish species in Pyramid Lake.⁽¹⁰¹⁾ As a result, these operating procedures are now intended to both improve on-project efficiencies and reduce Truckee River diversions. Even so, Newlands Project rights to the waters of both the Carson and Truckee rivers represent the single greatest demand for water on both of these river systems.

Much of this controversy centers on the interbasin transfer to the Carson River Basin of a significant percentage of the total flow of the Truckee River that enters the State of Nevada each year. Between 1910 and 1966, this amount of diverted Truckee River waters has been estimated at nearly 240,000 acre-feet per year,⁽¹⁰²⁾ and comprised 42.9 percent of average annual flows of 559,300 acre-feet per year measured at the Farad gaging station (California-Nevada state line) over this period of record. During the more recent period of record (1967-1994), and subsequent to the issuance of the Newlands Project's first OCAP, Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam⁽¹⁰³⁾ have averaged approximately 183,280 acre-feet per year, and comprised 31.3 percent of average annual flows of 584,980 acre-feet per year measured at the Farad gaging station. Since the imposition of the 1988 OCAP and new water allocation methods for the project, diversions at Derby Dam have averaged approximately 167,760 acre-feet per year during the period of 1988-1994,⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ and comprised 62.7 percent of average annual flows of 267,430 acre-feet per year measured at the Farad gaging station. This 1988-1994 period of record represented the most severe period of drought in the northern Nevada watersheds, hence tending to distort these diversion figures relative to total flows (discharges).

This interbasin transfer of a significant portion of the Truckee River's waters has raised a number of inter-related water issues including: (1) Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe water rights (the "reservation doctrine" based on the 1908 Winters Rights Doctrine);⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ and attempts to use this doctrine to obtain sufficient water for the restoration of the Pyramid Lake fishery (denied by the U.S. Supreme Court); (2) the obligation of the federal government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for the survival of threatened and endangered fish species within Pyramid Lake based on the Endangered Species Act;⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ (3) the restoration and preservation of a minimum amount of wetlands in Lahontan Valley for the protection of migratory bird populations to include issues dealing with both water quantity and water quality; (4) increasing municipal needs within the Truckee River Basin, and particularly securing sufficient upstream drought storage for the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area; and (5) issues over the quality of the water in the lower Truckee River below the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility.

Another major issue with respect to the lower Carson River Basin centers not just on the quantity of water to be made available to the Lahontan Valley wetlands, but also its quality. An incident of extensive fish and bird mortality in this area, following particularly heavy inflows from the Carson and Humboldt rivers in 1986 and 1987, clearly demonstrated the potential exposure of this area to potentially-harmful, naturally-occurring constituents contained in the waters flowing into these wetlands. Lahontan Valley's wetland system encompasses a large portion of the lower Carson River Basin and includes the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, the Fallon NWR, Stillwater Wildlife Management Area and, at the south end of the valley, the Carson Lake and Pasture. This extensive and ecologically diverse area serves as a key production, migration, and wintering area for up to one million waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. Each spring and fall this area hosts a significant percentage of certain species of the Pacific Flyway's migratory birds. In 1988 the system was named to the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network and has been nominated for inclusion under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance. In addition, the health of the White Pelicans at the Anaho Island NWR, which was established in Pyramid Lake in 1913 to protect the White Pelican nesting colonies, has been shown to be inextricably linked to the viability of the Lahontan Valley wetlands.⁽¹⁰⁷⁾

Another water-related controversy in the Carson River Basin deals with the mercury content of the soils and riverbed of the lower Carson River near and below Brunswick Canyon, where some of the largest of the 75 Comstock-era mills were located in the late 1800s. It has been estimated that during the 30-year peak of the Comstock mining era (1865-1895), some 200,000 flasks of mercury,⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ or approximately 7,500 tons, were lost in the milling process and that only about 0.5 percent of that total was ever recovered. Mercury concentrations in soil samples have been found to be some 200 times greater below the mill sites than above them; the highest concentrations in the Carson River have been found just upstream from Lahontan Reservoir.⁽¹⁰⁹⁾

In August 1990, this stretch of the Carson River through Dayton Valley and extending downstream to Lahontan Reservoir, to include Carson Lake, Stillwater NWR, and Indian Lakes in Lahontan Valley, along with adjoining tributaries stretching nearly to Virginia City itself, was declared a "Superfund site" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).⁽¹¹⁰⁾ Controversy not only surrounds the mercury's real and potential threat to both animal life and the human inhabitants, but also the need to undertake the remediation plan proposed by the EPA--removal of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of the upper soil strata at five selected sites within this area.⁽¹¹¹⁾

This situation has become exacerbated by the rapid growth in population of Carson City and surrounding communities, and particularly the resultant development spreading downstream from that city and through the Dayton Valley. The Commissioners of Lyon County, in which most of the declared remediation sites are located, are presently attempting to block the EPA's remediation efforts, arguing that there is no evidence of potential harm from the mercury deposits and that further action is destined to generate unwarranted publicity, harm tourism to the area, reduce property values, and waste taxpayers' money.⁽¹¹²⁾ Concerns have also been raised over the reluctance of prospective businesses to relocate to potential Superfund site which may require future remediation efforts.⁽¹¹³⁾

Derby Dam, the Truckee Canal, and Lahontan Reservoir

Derby Dam, located on the lower Truckee River approximately 11 miles upstream from Wadsworth, Nevada, is the regulating structure by which Truckee River waters are diverted into the 32.5-mile long Truckee Canal. These waters are used for irrigation within the Truckee Division of the Newlands Project, as well as for storage in Lahontan Reservoir in the lower Carson River Basin. The dam, originally named the Truckee River Diversion Dam, was completed by the U.S. Reclamation Service (renamed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1923) in June 1905. The Truckee Canal was completed through to the lower Carson River the following year. Without upstream storage on the Carson River, however, the project's agricultural season was subject to the vagaries of the highly seasonal and largely unregulated flows of both these river systems. As a result, in dry years the growing season was frequently shortened, production levels diminished, and multiple cropping not always possible. These problems were significantly mitigated in 1915 with the completion of Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, which provided the project with approximately 294,000 acre-feet of storage capacity (317,000 acre-feet with flashboards installed) on the lower Carson River just upstream from the project's farms.

Lahontan Dam and other project structures, stretching as far upstream on the Truckee River as the outlet dam at Lake Tahoe, are currently operated by TCID under a temporary contract with the USBR. The project's water rights, water diversions, and water duties are specified in various decrees and agreements, including the 1935 Truckee River Agreement, the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree, the 1980 Alpine Decree, and the current Newlands Project OCAP. The terms of these stipulations allow for the diversion of up to 1,500 cubic feet per second (Claim 3 of the Orr Ditch Decree with a 1902 priority date, although the canal's nominal capacity is only 900 cfs)⁽¹¹⁴⁾ from the Truckee River at Derby Dam and water duties of 3.5 acre-feet per acre per year (bottom lands) and 4.5 acre-feet per acre per year (bench lands) for project irrigated acreage (1944 Orr Ditch Decree and 1980 Alpine Decree).

In 1968 the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior claiming that the 1967 OCAP, the first set of operating criteria to be established by the Secretary for this project, was allowing water to be wasted within the Newlands Project. The suit was primarily intended to improve project efficiencies and thereby reduce Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam. In February 1973, the Gesell Opinion (named after Judge Gerhard Gesell, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.) was issued which called for a new OCAP and an immediate reduction in Newlands Project diversions from the 1926 contract delivery quantity of 406,000 acre-feet per year (using both Carson and Truckee River waters) to 350,000 acre-feet per year, with step-wise reductions thereafter to an ultimate level of 288,129 acre-feet per year.⁽¹¹⁵⁾ A lawsuit was subsequently filed in 1974 by the City of Fallon against the imposition of this new OCAP. The appeals process on this suit continued through 1988, at which time a new OCAP, and new water allocation method, were instituted.

Under the present project OCAP, the quantity of water which may be diverted from the Truckee River at Derby Dam varies with the determination of the irrigation entitlement each year and the predicted runoff from the Carson River and water in storage in Lahontan Reservoir.⁽¹¹⁶⁾ These more recent project OCAPs, as originally derived from the 1973 Gesell (U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C.) Opinion, have attempted to minimize the use of Truckee River waters as much as possible.

On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Indian Tribe, the USDI now claims that between 1973 and 1988 TCID over-diverted approximately 1,058,000 acre-feet of Truckee River water and is calling for this recoupment to be repaid to Pyramid Lake. Churchill County, the City of Fallon, and TCID officials, as well as Newlands Project farmers, have claimed that because the City of Fallon filed a 1974 lawsuit against the implementation of the new OCAP, in part calling for a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the 1973 OCAP should not have been implemented. TCID has further claimed that, as the appeals process for these suits against the implementation of the new OCAP were not fully resolved until 1988, the claim for recoupment of excessive diversions before that time is unreasonable.⁽¹¹⁷⁾ The recoupment of Truckee River waters remains a major issue in the eventual resolution of the Negotiated Settlement Act (Public Law 101-618) which, when passed by Congress in November 1990, was intended to settle the myriad of claims and outstanding lawsuits associated with these issues pertaining to the allocation and use of Carson River and Truckee River waters.

Of particular concern to the Lahontan Valley farmers is Section 209(h)(1) of this 1990 act which specifies that, among other things, outstanding debts owed by TCID to the federal government relating to the project costs will not be canceled unless and until an agreement has been reached concerning claims for recoupment of water diverted in excess to the amounts permitted by applicable OCAP. More recent actions (December 1995) by the City of Fallon and Churchill County involved filing an injunctive suit to prevent the implementation of the Negotiated Settlement, and particularly the continued purchase of water rights in the project for transfer to the Lahontan Valley wetlands, until a new EIS has been completed.⁽¹¹⁸⁾

One week after that action was taken by Churchill County officials, the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against TCID to recoup, with "interest," excess waters diverted by TCID over the 15-year period from 1973 through 1988.⁽¹¹⁹⁾ This controversy over Truckee River diversions has been exacerbated when Churchill County officials filed a request with the USBR for supplemental Truckee River water rights under the Orr Ditch Decree (Claim No. 3),⁽¹²⁰⁾ and further when the State Engineer held hearings in early 1996 on TCID's September 1930 request for 100,000 acre-feet of unappropriated (flood) flows of the Truckee River.⁽¹²¹⁾

At issue in TCID's 1930 filing are the Truckee River's excess (unallocated, i.e., flood) flows, waters which the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe would rather see flow into Pyramid Lake. Hearings before the Nevada State Engineer on this request were not held until May 1994, at which time USDI categorically filed their objection to TCID's request and stated their refusal to permit the use of any federal facilities for the diversion, conveyance, storage, or distribution of additional waters from the Truckee River, even if a state water permit was issued. Based on this "threshold issue" alone, on May 31, 1994, the State Engineer denied TCID's application without ruling on whether there exists unappropriated water, whether the application would interfere with existing rights, or whether the application would threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest.⁽¹²²⁾ Subsequently, on June 30, 1994, TCID filed an appeal in the Third Judicial Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Churchill, to the State Engineer's ruling. The court ruled to remand the case back to the State Engineer for a re-hearing so additional evidence and testimony could be presented. These hearings were held in late January 1996 and the State Engineer has yet to issue a ruling on the matter.

The Churchill County request for supplemental municipal and industrial water is particularly singular as it represents the first such interbasin request in recent history for Truckee River waters for a use other than agriculture.⁽¹²³⁾ Many individual water users in this area rely on shallow alluvial aquifers, portions of which are recharged by Newlands Project water. This has heightened local concerns that water rights purchases on lands irrigated by the project could dramatically affect the reliability of future water supplies.⁽¹²⁴⁾ The Negotiated Settlement specifies that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to "...operate and maintain the [Newlands] project for the purpose of...municipal and industrial water supply in Lyon and Churchill counties, Nevada."⁽¹²⁵⁾

Current Diversions Out of the Carson River Basin

Currently there are no diversions of water outside of the Carson River Basin. In fact, Article VII of the California-Nevada Interstate Compact specifically prohibits waters of the Carson River from being used in areas outside the Carson River Basin.⁽¹²⁶⁾ While this compact has never been ratified by Congress, its provisions have been accepted through a "gentleman's agreement" and individual state legislation.⁽¹²⁷⁾

Current Diversions Into the Carson River Basin

While no waters are diverted out of the Carson River Basin, this basin receives waters diverted from the Truckee River Basin.⁽¹²⁸⁾ The basin is also the recipient of natural, high-water year inflows from the Humboldt River Basin via the Humboldt Sink and Humboldt Slough, and infrequent flows from the Walker River Basin via Adrian Valley. The following is a list of the known current diversions into the Carson River Basin. All these diversions have as their source either the Lake Tahoe Basin or, ultimately, the Truckee River Basin.

[1] Marlette Lake, Franktown Creek, and Hobart Creek Reservoir--The Marlette Lake water system, originally constructed in 1873, was intended to meet the growing needs of Virginia City during the Comstock era. This water system, which at one time consisted of flumes, a tunnel, and over 21 miles of an inverted suction pipeline, first ran from just below Hobart Creek Reservoir (which is fed by Hobart Creek) on Franktown Creek, which drains into Washoe Valley and Washoe Lake, then across Washoe Valley to Five-Mile Reservoir in the Virginia City range on the east side of Washoe Valley. A second pipeline from Franktown Creek was completed in 1875. A third pipeline (originally consisting of a flume and tunnel system), this time tapping the waters of Marlette Lake, which drains directly into Lake Tahoe, was completed in 1887. The current system pumps water directly from Marlette Lake to Hobart Creek Reservoir. Total diversion from this source is approximately 3,000 acre-feet per year.

[2] Harvey Place Reservoir--Located in Alpine County, California, this reservoir receives advanced secondary treated effluent from the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Truckee River Basin). Effluent exports, amounting to approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year (4.5 million gallons per day),⁽¹²⁹⁾ are routed from the southern end of Lake Tahoe through a pipeline running generally along the course of the Upper Truckee River and over Luther Pass from El Dorado County, California, into Alpine County and the Carson River Basin. These effluent exports began in 1968 when Indian Creek Reservoir was constructed by STPUD. Beginning in 1989, exports were re-routed to Harvey Place Reservoir and Indian Creek Reservoir was turned into a freshwater recreational area managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

[3] Carson Valley--Located in Douglas County, Nevada, Carson Valley receives the treated effluent from the Incline Village (Nevada) General Improvement District (IVGID) and the Douglas County Sewer Improvement District (DCSID), which together cover the municipal water uses of the Nevada portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin (as part of the Truckee River Basin). The IVGID pumps approximately 1,700 acre-feet per year (1.5 million gallons per day) of treated waste water from its Incline Village treatment plant, along the east side of the lake to Spooner Summit, then down Clear Creek Valley to wetlands located in the northeastern portion of Carson Valley. The DCSID handles sewage collection and treatment on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe from Glenbrook to the Nevada-California state line at South Lake Tahoe. It pumps approximately 2,600 acre-feet (2.3 million gallons per day) of treated effluent over the Kingsbury Grade (Haines Canyon) and then to the east side of Carson Valley in the Pine Nut Range where it receives winter storage. During the irrigation season, these stored waters are then pumped back across Carson Valley and used for supplemental irrigation.⁽¹³⁰⁾

[4] Derby Dam and the Truckee Canal--These facilities, the first components constructed under the Truckee-Carson Irrigation Project in 1905-1906 (later renamed the Newlands Project), constitute the most significant means of diversion and conveyance of water from the lower Truckee River to the lower Carson River. For the water years 1967-1995, on the average, approximately 181,720 acre-feet of water flowed each year into the Truckee Canal at Derby Dam on the lower Truckee River. Truckee River waters flow through the 32.5-mile long Truckee Canal, first paralleling the river, then running along the western side of Lahontan Valley and into Lahontan Reservoir on the lower Carson River just above the project farmlands. Of this annual average 181,720 acre-feet of water diverted at Derby Dam, about 135,380 acre-feet per year, or nearly 75 percent of the total diverted amount, has actually flowed into Lahontan Reservoir.⁽¹³¹⁾

Carson River Operating Requirements and Procedures

The Alpine Decree embodies the principal governing criteria under which water rights are administered within the Carson River Basin. The Alpine Decree is the federal court adjudication of the water rights on the Carson River system and is the primary regulatory criteria of Carson River operations today. The decree is administered by a Federal Water Master appointed by the federal district court. The decree, finally entered on October 28, 1980 after initial litigation was begun on May 11, 1925 (United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al.), established the respective water rights (to surface waters only) of the parties to the original lawsuit, both in California and Nevada. The decree did not make an interstate allocation of the Carson River between California and Nevada; it only quantified individual water rights. Neither state was a party to the decree.

In addition to Carson River surface water rights, the Alpine Decree also established the rights to reservoir storage in the upper basin reservoirs (see Table 5, Carson River Upper Basin Reservoirs) and confirmed the historical practice of operating the river "on rotation," so that irrigators with more "junior priorities" (prior appropriation doctrine) could be served as long as possible.⁽¹³²⁾ The Carson River's upper basin reservoirs were permitted to fill out of priority order, in accordance with historical practice. The decree also specifically recognized "riparian water rights"⁽¹³³⁾ in California (as distinguished from the quantified "appropriative water rights"⁽¹³⁴⁾ used in Nevada). For purposes of water distribution, the Carson River and its East and West forks were divided into eight (8) segments, and when the river went into "regulation" (i.e., there was not enough water in the upper Carson River to serve the most junior priority), each segment of the river was to be administered autonomously.

Duties of water were set forth for various locations according to bench land and bottom land designations. For lands in the Newlands Project (i.e., below Lahontan Dam) in Churchill County near Fallon, Nevada, the Alpine Decree provided for a maximum water duty of 4.5 acre-feet per acre per year for water-righted bench lands and 3.5 acre-feet per acre per year for water-righted bottom lands delivered to the land.⁽¹³⁵⁾ For lands above the Newlands Project (i.e., above Lahontan Reservoir), the Decree provides for water duties of 4.5 acre-feet per acre per year for bottom lands, 6.0 acre-feet per acre per year for alluvial fan lands, and 9.0 acre-feet per acre per year for bench lands diverted to the canal.⁽¹³⁶⁾ These water duties were based on the consumptive use, or "crop irrigation requirement,"⁽¹³⁷⁾ of alfalfa, as it is a dominant and the highest water-using crop grown in Nevada. While the Alpine Decree established water duties for bench and bottom lands throughout the Carson River Basin, it made no identification of those lands.

The Alpine Decree also affirmed Newlands Project water rights as an "appurtenant water right" for the patented lands, effectively transferring water rights to these land holders individually rather than to the federal government. This individual ownership of project water rights has severely restricted the federal government's ability to reclaim water rights for other purposes (e.g., wetland restoration and endangered fish species), and it has also affected Newlands Project farmers' ability to transfer water rights from one parcel of water-righted land to another.⁽¹³⁸⁾

For purposes of administering the decree, the Carson River and its tributaries were divided into eight segments as follows:⁽¹³⁹⁾

[1] Segment 1--The East Fork of the Carson River from the California-Nevada state line up to the headwaters of the East Fork in the Sierra Nevada Mountains;

[2] Segment 2--The East Fork of the Carson River from the California-Nevada state line to the confluence of the East and West Forks of the Carson River;

[3] Segment 3--The West Fork of the Carson River from the gauge at Woodfords, California upstream to the headwaters in the Sierra Nevada Mountains;

[4] Segment 4--The West Fork of the Carson River from the gauge at Woodfords to the California-Nevada state line;

[5] Segment 5--The West Fork of the Carson River (and Brockliss Slough) between the California-Nevada state line and the confluence of the East and West Forks of the Carson River;

[6] Segment 6--The main stream of the Carson River from the confluence of the East Fork, West Fork and Brockliss Slough to the gauge at Carson City;

[7] Segment 7--The main stream of the Carson River from the Carson City gauge to Lahontan Reservoir. This segment is further subdivided for administration into autonomous subsegments:

(a) Mexican Ditch, Dayton and the reach between Rose Ditch and Cardelli

(b) Gee Ditch;

(c) Koch Ditch;

(d) Houghman and Howard Ditches;

(e) Buckland Ditch.

[8] Segment 8--The area below the Lahontan Dam [Lahontan Valley].

Another operating decree affecting water flows in the Carson River Basin is the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree. This adjudication of Truckee River water rights within Nevada granted the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (formerly USRS) a right to divert up to 1,500 cubic feet per second into the Truckee Canal at Derby Dam (Claim 3, with a priority date of 1902).⁽¹⁴⁰⁾

Table 6--1995 Water Year¹ Impacts on Truckee and Carson River Storage

Table Notes:
¹ The 1995 (hydrologic) water year encompassed the period from October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995. Figures are provisional USGS data and are subject to revision.
² MSL--surface elevation above mean sea level.
³ Measures only usable storage capacity above Lake Tahoe's natural rim of 6,223.0 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and its maximum allowable elevation of 6,229.1 feet MSL; equivalent to approximately 10,172 acre-feet per inch of surface elevation change above 6,223.0 feet MSL.
⁴ Represents additional storage required (deficit) to bring Lake Tahoe's surface elevation up to its natural rim of 6,223.0 feet MSL.
⁵ Lahontan Reservoir is listed due to its importance in terms of the use of Truckee River waters. Carson River flows at the Fort Churchill Gage approximate flows into Lahontan Reservoir which, in combination with Lahontan Reservoir's storage level, will affect the quantity of Truckee River diversions at Derby Dam.
⁶ Lahontan Reservoir storage capacity estimated at nearly 317,000 acre-feet with flashboards installed on the dam's spillway crest.

Source Data: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, U.S. Department of the Interior, Carson City, Nevada. Data are provisional and subject to revision.

Effects of the 1995 High Water Year

A near-record year of precipitation in 1995--157 percent of normal for the Carson River Basin, 184 percent of normal for the Truckee River Basin, and 168 percent of normal for the Lake Tahoe Basin--did much to recharge the groundwater and fill lakes and reservoirs in the Truckee River and Carson River basins after eight years of drought conditions (1987-1994). Table 6, 1995 Water Year Impacts on Truckee and Carson River Storage, highlights the effects on the principal upstream water storage locations in Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River Basin, as well as the change in storage for Lahontan Reservoir in the lower Carson River Basin. Several of these Truckee River Basin storage reservoirs are of special importance to the Carson River Basin, and particularly the Newlands Irrigation Project, due to Derby Dam diversion rights from upstream storage--i.e., Lake Tahoe, Donner Lake, Prosser Creek Reservoir, and Boca Reservoir. Pyramid Lake's increased volume of some 410,000 acre-feet represented a gain in one year of nearly 17 percent of the total volume lost (2,430,000 acre-feet) by Pyramid Lake over the previous eight years (1987-1994) of drought, clearly indicating the rapid change in hydrologic conditions which typically characterize these Northern Nevada water basins.⁽¹⁴¹⁾

Water Basin Snowpack Water Content Trends

Table 7, Northern Nevada Water Basin Snow Water Content, presents an historical perspective of precipitation levels in Northern Nevada's major water basins over the years 1980 through 1996 and is based on the percentage of average snow water content as of April 1st of each year (average year = 100 percent). This period is of special significance to the hydrology of these water basins as it included the wettest year on record for the Sierra Nevada Mountain water basins (1983) and the Humboldt River Basin (1984), as well as the most severe drought period on record (1987-1994) for these watersheds. These figures emphasize the extreme variations in snowpack and its water content from year to year. This presentation also shows how these watersheds are generally affected by the same winter storm systems, resulting in typically similar patterns of precipitation and snow water content measures. These year-to-year variabilities add support to concerns over using the concept of an "Average Water Year" for watershed forecasting and planning purposes, as there are so few such years in reality.

From this table we may also note the relative difference in snowpack water content of the wet period of record (1982-1986) and the drought period of record (1987-1994). During the wet period, snow water content in the Carson River Basin averaged 138 percent of normal, more than twice the average snow water content of 61 percent experienced during the eight year drought period of 1987-1994. The accompanying graph presents the 1980-1996 trends for the snow water content for the Carson River Basin specifically as of April 1st of each year. With respect to the figures in Table 7, despite the seemingly wide variability in the snow pack water content figures for the Carson River Basin, the average for the entire 1980-1996 period for this water basins was very close to the entire period of record average of 100 percent. Specifically, the average for this 1980-1996 period was 98 percent,⁽¹⁴²⁾ thereby indicating that while individual values seem highly volatile, the pattern was, overall, "average."

Table 7--Northern Nevada Water Basin Snow Water Content

¹ Snow water content figures for the Truckee River Basin exclude the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reno, Nevada, May 1996.

Lake Lahontan, the Carson Sink, and Climatic Changes

Walker Lake, located in the Walker River Basin, and Pyramid Lake, located in the Truckee River Basin, represent the last major lake remnants of Ice Age Lake Lahontan. Due to Nevada's typical "basin and range" topography, this ancient lake covered a highly irregular surface area throughout much of northwestern Nevada as recently as 12,500 years ago and experienced a number of fluctuations (ascensions and descensions) in its extent over the last 360,000 years. At its peak surface elevation of 4,380 feet MSL, Lake Lahontan covered some 8,655 square miles (5,540,000 acres) and attained a maximum depth of 886 feet at Pyramid Lake. The largest open expanse of this ancient lake was in the Lahontan Valley and Carson Sink area, where it attained a maximum depth of approximately 700 feet. The importance of studying this lake's presence, and particularly its fluctuations, lies in the corresponding climatic conditions that fostered these hydrologic events and the changes in those conditions that led to its rapid rise and fall and, on occasion, its complete desiccation, with the possible exception of a pool remaining within Pyramid Lake.

Lake Lahontan was fed by the Truckee, Carson, Walker, Humboldt, Susan, and Quinn rivers. At its maximum extent, Lake Lahontan encompassed seven major sub-basins in western Nevada including: (1) Smoke Creek/Black Rock Desert; (2) Carson Desert; (3) Buena Vista; (4) Walker Lake; (5) Pyramid Lake; (6) Winnemucca Dry Lake; and (7) Honey Lake. Associated with each of these basins was a primary "sill," defined as the lowest point on the divide between adjoining basins. The sills were important to the expansion of Lake Lahontan because only at the lake's surface water elevations above these threshold levels would its waters, originating in the basin's lowest point--Pyramid Lake--spill over into the adjacent basins. These sills included (listed respectively according to the corresponding sub-basin numbers above): (1) Pronto and Emerson Pass; (2) Darwin Pass; (3) Chocolate; (4) Adrian Valley (Pass); (5) none [Pyramid Lake was Lake Lahontan's lowest point in the basin]; (6) Mud [Winnemucca] Lake Slough; and (7) Astor Pass.⁽¹⁴³⁾

It was only at lake surface elevations above approximately 4,294 feet that all the seven sub-basins of Lake Lahontan were joined into one continuous, albeit highly irregular, lake. This particular elevation represented the highest point within the Adrian Valley, a narrow valley, almost ten miles in length, running from a point on the lower Carson River near the abandoned ruins of Fort Churchill in the Dayton Valley, southward to the northwest corner of Mason Valley in the Walker River Basin. Within this valley, the Adrian Pass constituted the sill over which an ascending Lake Lahontan spilled from the lower Carson River Basin into the lower Walker River Basin and the Walker Lake sub-basin.

Waters from an ascending Lake Lahontan flowed west up the lower Carson River into Dayton Valley and then south through the Adrian Valley and into the Walker River Basin. Once in the Walker River Basin, Lake Lahontan's waters then flowed down Campbell Valley to fill Walker Lake and the Walker Lake sub-basin, extending Lake Lahontan's southernmost reach to a point just south of the present-day town of Hawthorne in Mineral County, Nevada. Once this lower portion of the basin filled, Lake Lahontan's waters then flowed up Mason Valley to the present-day location of the City of Yerington in Lyon County, Nevada. Extensive scientific evidence based on sophisticated X-ray diffraction petrographic and radiocarbon analyses,⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ as well as detailed analysis of Walker Lake's lakebed core samples,⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ indicates that Lake Lahontan and its various hydrographic sub-basins have been subject to extensive fluctuations over the last 40,000 years and most of the sub-basins, with the possible exception of Pyramid Lake, have completely dried up on several occasions.

This apparent repetitive cycle of lake ascension and descension and related pluvial (wet) and inter-pluvial (dry) periods, has important implications for our own time period and the present hydrologic cycle, climatic conditions, and our expectations of natural versus man-caused changes within these various hydrographic basins. As recently as 15,000-13,500 years ago, it is believed that Lake Lahontan went through an ascension phase, attaining a surface elevation of approximately 4,370 feet MSL,⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ a surface area of slightly less than 8,600 square miles,⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ and the connection of all basins. Lake Lahontan's last high stand was estimated to have occurred some 12,500 years ago. Between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago, Lake Lahontan's surface level fell to approximately 3,871 feet, a surface elevation approximately equivalent to that which existed in Pyramid Lake during the early 1880s.

Warm and arid conditions have generally prevailed throughout the Great Basin from approximately 10,000 years ago to the present.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ One period, however, appeared to represent an exception. Beginning some 5,000 years ago, it is believed that the most recent lake period began and during that time the Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink filled to a depth of approximately 80 feet (surface elevation of 3,950 feet MSL), gradually desiccating by the 1800s.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ Further evidence also indicates that during this same period Walker Lake completely dried up on two more recent occasions--the first period being some 4,700 years before the present, a time period approximately coinciding with the filling of the Carson Sink, and then again 2,600 years before the present.

However, it is not certain whether these more recent periods of Walker Lake's desiccation were attributed to the region's climatic changes or to some natural re-channelization of the Walker River's mainstem northward below Yerington, along the western side of Mason Valley, and out of the Walker River Basin through the Adrian Valley, in which case the Walker River became a tributary of the Carson River.⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ However, if the Lahontan Valley was, in fact, inundated over this period, and this condition was due to a pluvial phase, however brief, then Walker Lake should not have been drying up, as evidence indicates it was. Therefore, this strongly suggests that it may have been the natural re-direction of the Walker River's flow (through the Adrian Valley and into the lower Carson River) and not climatic conditions that dried up Walker Lake during these periods. This contribution of the Walker River's water to the Carson River would also help to explain the filling of the Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink during this period.

Major Floods and Droughts

Table 8, Major Floods and Droughts in Northern Nevada--1907-1995, presents a listing of the more prominent extreme hydrologic events of the twentieth century which affected the major water basins of northern Nevada. A more extensive detailing of the major recorded flood events of the Carson River Basin and their effects on property are contained in Parts II and III of this chronology.

Table 8--Major Floods and Droughts in Northern Nevada--1907-1995

¹ Recurrence interval; calculated from USGS data. Symbols ">" represent greater than; "<" less than.

Source: Reprinted in part from U.S. Geological Survey "Nevada Floods and Droughts," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, Water Resources Division, Carson City, Nevada, 1989.

Notes to Part I:

1. From information provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division, Carson City, Nevada.

2. For information on the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins, see Truckee River Chronology--A Chronological History of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River and Related Water Issues, Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada.

3. For information on the Walker River Basin, see Walker River Chronology--A Chronological History of the Walker River and Related Water Issues, Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada.

4. For WaterPlanning and conservation purposes, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of The Resources Agency, have divided the state into ten (10) Hydrologic Regions, also referred to as Hydrologic Study Areas (HSAs). These areas are based on the watershed or water basin concept. These California HSAs include:

1. North Coast Region;
2. San Francisco Bay;
3. Central Coast Region;
4. South Coast Region;
5. Sacramento River Region;
6. San Joaquin River Region;
7. Tulare Lake Region;
8. North Lahontan Region;
9. South Lahontan Region;
10. Colorado River Region.

[See The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-93, Volume 2, Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, October 1994, page 3. Also see WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, for more on these HSAs and their geographic, hydrologic, and socioeconomic characteristics.]

5. Nevada Hydrographic Basin Statistical Summary, Office of the State Engineer, Nevada Division of Water Resources, and Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, 1988.

6. Houghton, Samuel G., A Trace of Desert Waters: The Great Basin Story, University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada, 1994, page 61.

7. California-Nevada Interstate Compact Between the State of California and Nevada, Ratified by [the] State of California, September 19, 1970 (Chapter 1480, California Statutes 1970), Ratified by [the] State of Nevada, March 5, 1971 (Nevada Revised Statutes 538.600), Congressional Consent Pending, April 25, 1971, pages 19-20. This last covenant pertaining to uses of the Carson River's waters outside the basin is particularly interesting because of all the major water basins in northern and western Nevada--Truckee, Carson, Walker, and Humboldt--the Carson River Basin is by far the largest recipient of other basins' waters, and most especially the waters of the Truckee River Basin, to include waters diverted by Derby Dam through the Truckee Canal for the Newlands Project (approximately 181,720 acre-feet per year, 1967-1995, and 170,890 acre-feet per year, 1973-1995), Marlette Lake and Franktown Creek (Hobart Creek Reservoir) for Virginia City and Carson City water supplies (about 3,000 acre-feet per year), and the South Tahoe Public Utility District which conveys treated effluent (4,000-5,000 acre-feet per year) from the Lake Tahoe Basin through a pipeline over Luther Pass to Harvey Place Reservoir into Alpine County. [See CARSON RIVER ATLAS, Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, December 1991, page 24. Also see Truckee River Chronology, op. cit., Part I, "Current Diversions from the Truckee River and Lake Tahoe Basins."] Additionally, the Incline Village (Washoe County, Nevada) General Improvement District (IVGID) at Lake Tahoe pumps approximately 1,700 acre-feet per year to a wetland area in the northern part of Carson Valley while the Douglas County Sewer Improvement District (DCSID), serving that portion of Lake Tahoe from Glenbrook to the Nevada-California border at South Lake Tahoe (Stateline), pumps approximately 2,600 acre-feet per year to a reservoir in the Pine Nut Mountains on the east side of Carson Valley, where these waters then flow back to the east side of the Carson Valley in the summer for irrigation use.

8. For a reprint of this act, see TRUCKEE RIVER ATLAS, Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, June 1991, Appendix 1, pages 99-117.

9. This litigation was prompted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) and U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS) in order to obtain water rights for Lahontan Reservoir (completed in 1915) and the Truckee-Carson (Newlands) Irrigation Project's farmlands below it. [See Murphy, Shane, The Lore and Legend of the East Fork--A Historical Guide for Floating the East Carson River, The Carson River Conservation Fund, Zephyr Cove, Nevada, 1982, page 66.]

10. On January 24, 1983, with respect to the issuance of the Alpine Decree (U.S. v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Company, et al.) on October 28, 1980, the decision of the lower court was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on all but one issue: It was found, on appeal, that the U.S. Ninth District Court's requirement of a 30,000 acre-foot minimum pool in Lahontan Reservoir for public fishing and recreation was not supported by evidence. This portion of the decree was remanded to the lower court for additional findings. No subsequent effort was taken to establish such a minimum pool in Lahontan Reservoir until negotiations related to The Negotiated Settlement (Public Law 101-618) were conducted in 1995. [Correspondence, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.]

11. As a note of convention, it is interesting to point out that on the Carson River system the two principal forks are commonly referred to as the Carson River East Fork and the Carson River West Fork. On the other hand, on the Walker River system immediately to the south, the convention is to refer to the two principal forks as the East Walker River and the West Walker River. [See Walker River Chronology, op. cit.]

12. In the CARSON RIVER ATLAS (Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, December 1991, page 91) it was reported that according to an earlier U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, about 47,000 irrigated acres existed in the Carson Valley. Due to subsequent urbanization and changes in land ownership, however, this figure has since been reduced considerably. According to a more recent U.S. Census of Agriculture (1987), it was reported that a total of 41,000 irrigated acres existed in all of Douglas County. Allowing for several thousand acres of irrigated farmland in the Douglas County portion of Antelope Valley to the south in the Walker River Basin, the 35,000 irrigated acres reported here appears a reasonable estimate of current irrigated acreage in the Carson Valley alone.

13. Initial Bench & Bottom Land, Map and Criteria, Newlands Project, Nevada, Division of Water and Power Resources Management, Water Operation and Maintenance Branch, Irrigation Section, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Department of the Interior, Sacramento, California, September 1990, Revised January 1992, pages 11-12.

14. Benson, Larry V., "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4258, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, 1988, page 2.

15. Actually, over this time period Lake Lahontan underwent several "peaking enlargements" which would have covered the Lahontan Valley and the Carson Sink. [See Benson, Larry V., "Fluctuation in the Level of Pluvial Lake Lahontan During the Last 40,000 Years," Quaternary Research, Volume 9, Number 3, University of Washington, 1978, page 316.]

16. Houghton, op. cit., page 73.

17. During Lake Lahontan's highstand approximately 65,000 years ago, with less sediment in the Carson Sink of the lower Carson River Basin, the lakes's depth at this point was estimated to be approximately 700 feet. [See Initial Bench & Bottom Land, Map and Criteria, op. cit., page 11.] During a later highstand, which began about 25,000 years ago, with more sediment and a slightly lower lake surface elevation (4,370 feet MSL), the maximum depth in the Lahontan Valley was estimated at about 500 feet. [See Initial Bench & Bottom Land, Map and Criteria, op. cit., pages 11-12, and Strickland, Rose, "Stillwater: Its Friends and Neighbors," Dividing Desert Waters, Nevada Public Affairs Review, Number 1, 1992, Senator Alan Bible Center for Applied Research, University of Nevada, Reno, page 68.]

18. Realistically, there tends to exist some flow between these basins in most years. It has been estimated, that whenever 300,000-350,000 acre-feet of water is released in a given year from Rye Patch Reservoir (located on the Humboldt River approximately 22 miles upstream from Lovelock, Nevada), there will be some inflow into the Carson Sink from the Humboldt Sink. Also, during the high-water period of 1983-1986 when nearly 500,000 acre-feet flowed into the Carson Sink, it was estimated that a significant portion of these inflows came from the lower Humboldt River Basin via the Humboldt Slough. [Saake, op. cit.] The last such recorded "connection" between the terminus locations of these two river basins, making for one contiguous body of water, was reported by the Carson City Daily Appeal on January 16, 1868 when it stated that "During the late storm the water in the sinks of the Carson and Humboldt rose above the land usually intervening and formed one immense lake." [See McQuivey, Robert, "Nevada Habitat and Fisheries Historical Media File," Habitat Bureau, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1996.]

19. Houghton, op. cit., page 86.

20. CARSON RIVER ATLAS, op. cit., page 14.

21. Inflows into the Carson Sink during this period were from both the Carson River and the Humboldt River. [Saake, op. cit.]

22. Rowe, Timothy G., and Ray J. Hoffman, "Wildlife Kills in the Carson Sink, Western Nevada, Winter 1986-87," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350 (Selected Events), USGS Water Resources Division, Carson City, Nevada, 1988.

23. Personal communication, Norm Saake, Statewide Waterfowl Specialist, Game Bureau, Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Fallon, Nevada, May 1996.

24. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nevada Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, have divided the state into discrete hydrologic units for WaterPlanning and management purposes. These have been identified as 232 Hydrographic Areas (256 areas and sub-areas, combined) within 14 major Hydrographic Regions or Basins. These 14 Nevada Hydrographic Regions (Basins) are: (1) Northwest Region--Covers 3,073 square miles (1,966,080 acres) of northern Washoe and Humboldt counties and encompasses 16 hydrographic areas; (2) Black Rock Desert Region--Covers 8,632 square miles (5,524,480 acres) of parts of Washoe, Humboldt, and Pershing counties and includes 17 valleys (hydrographic areas), two of which are divided into two sub-areas each; (3) Snake River Basin--Covers 5,230 square miles (3,347,200 acres) in parts of Elko and Humboldt counties to include eight hydrographic areas; (4) Humboldt River Basin--Covers over 16,843 square miles (10,779,520 acres) in parts of eight counties--Elko, White Pine, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Nye, Pershing, and Churchill--and the largest stream (Humboldt River) wholly within Nevada. This basin contains 34 hydrographic areas and one sub-area; (5) West Central Region--Covers 1,656 square miles (1,059,840 acres) and includes parts of Pershing, Lyon, and Churchill counties and comprises five hydrographic areas; (6) Truckee River Basin--Encompasses 2,300 square miles (1,472,000 acres) containing parts of Washoe, Pershing, Douglas, Carson City, and Storey counties comprising 12 hydrographic areas; (7) Western Region--Covers 577 square miles (369,280 acres) and is wholly contained in Washoe County and contains nine valleys (hydrographic areas) one of which is divided into two sub-areas and another divided into one sub-area; (8) Carson River Basin--Covers 3,519 square miles (2,252,160 acres) and includes parts of six counties--Douglas, Carson City, Lyon, Storey, Churchill, and Pershing--containing five hydrographic areas and one sub-area along the Carson River and its tributaries; (9) Walker River Basin--Covers 3,048 square miles (1,949,440 acres) of Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas counties including five hydrographic areas, one of which has been divided into three sub-areas; (10) Central Region--By far the largest hydrographic region in Nevada covering 46,783 square miles (29,941,120 acres) in 13 counties--Nye, Elko, White Pine, Lincoln, Clark, Humboldt, Pershing, Churchill, Lander, Eureka, Lyon, Mineral, and Esmeralda. This region includes 78 valleys (hydrographic areas), 10 of which are divided into two sub-areas and one into three sub-areas; (11) Great Salt Lake Basin--Covers 3,807 square miles (2,436,480 acres) of the easternmost portions of Elko, White Pine, and Lincoln counties. It consists of eight hydrographic areas, one of which is divided into four sub-areas; (12) Escalante Desert Basin--This basin covers a large area in Utah but only a very small part of it is in Lincoln County--106 square miles (67,480 acres)--and is made up of only one hydrographic area; (13) Colorado River Basin--Covers 12,376 square miles (7,920,640 acres) including parts of Clark, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties and is divided into 27 hydrographic areas; (14) Death Valley Basin--Covers 2,593 square miles (1,659,520 acres) of Nye and Esmeralda counties including eight hydrographic areas, one of which has been divided into two sub-areas. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

25. Simpson, Captain James H., Report of Explorations Across the Great Basin in 1859, U.S. Army Engineering Department, Washington, D.C., page 479.

26. Stewart, Robert E., unpublished notes, "Carson Lake Navigability," Nevada Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, 1995, page 2.

27. After this flood event, it was reported that local farmers forced the river back into its original channel to Carson Lake. The last flow from Carson Lake to Stillwater via the Stillwater River or Slough was reported to have occurred shortly after the turn of the century. [Saake, op. cit.]

28. Carson Lake's surface area has varied widely in recent years. As recently as 1972 its area was recorded at 14,040 acres (22 square miles), declining to only 1,900 acres (3 square miles) by 1977. After the high water years of 1983-86, the lake's area increased to 12,665 acres (20 square miles), subsequently declining to only 145 acres (0.23 square mile) by 1992, then enlarging to 1,361 acres (2.1 square miles) by 1994. [Source: "Table 1--Estimated Wetland Acres Within Lahontan Valley," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fallon, Nevada, 1995.] More recently, Saake (op. cit.) reported that after the wet year of 1995, Carson Lake's water surface area increased to approximately 5,000 acres (7.8 square miles), and after another above normal year of precipitation in 1996, Carson Lake's surface area was reported at approximately 15,000 acres (23.4 square miles) in May 1996.

29. Rowe, op. cit.

30. Ibid.

31. It should be noted that typically very little drainwater (along with its dissolved solids and other potentially harmful and mostly naturally-occurring constituents) actually reaches the Carson Sink proper; most of these flows are directed into Carson Lake or the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. [Saake, op. cit.]

32. Townley, John M., The Orr Ditch Case, 1913-1944, Water Resources Center Publication 43007, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada System, October 1980, pages 3-4.

33. Strong, Douglas H., Tahoe: An Environmental History, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984, page 44.

34. Represents the average annual diversion down the Truckee Canal (Federal Watermaster's gage) over the entire period of record of 1910-1966 as compiled by Sierra Hydrotech from TCID diversion records. The annual average diversion over this period was 239,700 acre-feet. [Personal communication, Al Olson, Lahontan Basin Projects Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Carson City, Nevada.]

35. A Study of Water Rights and Their Enforcement [in the] Lake Tahoe, Truckee and Carson River Basins, Prepared by Water Rights Study Group, Pyramid Lake Task Force, [for the] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Sacramento Region, Sacramento, California, August 1971, page 103.

36. The amount of water-righted acreage within the Newlands Irrigation Project has typically varied from between approximately 58,000 acres and 65,000 acres. From a study using extensive aerial reconnaissance undertaken in July 1972, it was determined that the Newlands Project contained 64,388.4 acres of improved irrigated lands. This total acreage included 5,300.3 acres in the Truckee Division (along the Truckee Canal), which included the Fernley, Hazen, and Swingle Bench areas of the Newlands Project serviced from the Truckee Canal, and 60,209.1 acres in the Carson Division, which included the Stillwater, Stillwater Indian Reservation, Fallon, Island and Sheckler areas serviced below Lahontan Dam, for a total of 65,509.4 acres, less 1,121.0 acres of fallowed lands. [See Mahannah, C.N., J.C. Guitjens, and C.R. York, Western Nevada Water Controversy, Cooperative Extension Service, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1975, page 19.] Subsequently, in 1985, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation performed an Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of their analysis for various Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) scenarios. This EA found that within the Newlands Project, 63,100 acres were being irrigated, of which 57,518 acres had legal project water rights. Of the difference, 900 acres were irrigated by groundwater, 475 acres were irrigated with return flow rights, and 4,207 acres were irrigated which did not have documented water rights or for which water right transfer applications were not complete. [See Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Newlands Project Proposed Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP), U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, California, December 1987, page S-4.]

37. The term "bench land" is a general term describing porous and coarse-textured (sandy-gravelly) well-drained soils, overlying a deep water table (if occurring), that exhibits relatively low water holding capacity and rapid infiltration of irrigation water. The term "bottomland," or "bottom land," represents a general term describing generally rich, loamy or fine-textured and poorly drained soils, overlying a shallow water table or possibly adjacent to a stream, lake or other body of water, that exhibits relatively good water holding capacity and slow to moderate infiltration of irrigation water. Bottom lands are often associated with a river's flood plain. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) criteria (revised 1992) has defined bottom land for Nevada's Newlands Irrigation Project as "those lands with a five-foot soil profile having a holding capacity equal to or exceeding 8 inches and/or a water table within 6 feet of the surface for a period equal to or exceeding 150 days. If neither of these factors apply, the land is designated as bench land." Lands classified as bench (or bottom) according to USBR criteria, above, will be limited to maximum water deliveries (duty) in accordance to the provision of the 1944 Orr Ditch Decree and the 1980 Alpine Decree, which are identical in establishing water duties and establish the following limits: (1) Eligible lands designated as bench lands may receive a maximum of 4.5 acre-feet per acre per year; (2) eligible lands designated as bottom lands may receive a maximum of 3.5 acre-feet per acre per year. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

38. The "water duty" represents a measure of the total volume of irrigation water required for irrigation in order to mature a particular type of crop. In stating the duty, the crop, and usually the location of the land in question, as well as the type of soil, should be specified. It also includes consumptive use, evaporation and seepage from on-farm ditches and canals, and the water that is eventually returned to streams by percolation and surface runoff. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

39. Water Resources Data, Nevada, various issues, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report, Nevada District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Carson City, Nevada.

40. Initial Bench & Bottom Land, Map and Criteria, op. cit., page 11.

41. Townley, The Orr Ditch Case, 1913-1944, op. cit., page 6.

42. The Newlands Project was not the first water development project to tap the waters of the Truckee River Basin for use within the Carson River Basin. The first interbasin transfer of the waters between these basins occurred in August 1873 when waters were diverted from Franktown Creek (originally named Dall Creek and then Hobart Creek) and the Hobart Creek Reservoir, which flows into Washoe Valley and Washoe Lake, then on to the Truckee River via Steamboat Creek, for delivery through 21 miles of pipe to Virginia City, in Storey County, Nevada, and located in the Carson River watershed. A second pipeline was completed along this same route in 1875 and then, in 1887, a third pipeline to Virginia City was completed, this time tapping the waters of Marlette Lake, which directly fed into the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Marlette Lake diversion was more complicated, however, and involved the construction of a flume, a tunnel through the Carson Range to take the water from the Lake Tahoe Basin (as part of the Truckee River Basin) to the east slope of the Carson Range, and then another flume to the Franktown Creek diversion points below Hobart Creek Reservoir. [See The Marlette Lake Water System, A Report on the Feasibility and Desirability of Its Retention, Bulletin No. 79, Legislative Commission of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada, February 1969.]

43. CARSON RIVER ATLAS, op. cit., page 26. According to the Alpine Decree, "Lahontan Reservoir has a capacity of 295,149 acre-feet to the spillway crest. With 20-inch flashboards on the crest, the capacity is 317,280." [See Alpine Decree, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Tabulation and Administrative Provisions, United State of America v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, a Corporation, et al., Civil No. D-183 BRT, Final Decree, United States Federal District Court for the District of Nevada, October 28, 1980, page 1.]

44. A Study of Water Rights and Their Enforcement [in the] Lake Tahoe, Truckee and Carson River Basins, op. cit., page 103.

45. Within the Newlands Project, there are 102 miles of main canals, 312 miles of irrigation laterals, an extensive system of private ditches, 345 miles of drainage ditches, and numerous diversion dams and regulating reservoirs. TCID offices are located in Fallon, Nevada (Churchill County), and its operations are managed by a project manager, a board of seven members, and approximately 50 full-time employees. [Personal communication, Lyman McConnell, Project Manager, TCID, May 13, 1996.]

46. Tabulated by Sierra Hydrotech from TCID diversion records.

47. This elimination of the use of water for single-purpose power generation within the project was part of a "Bureau of Reclamation 9 Point 'Package' Proposal" supposedly negotiated between the USBR and TCID. In brief, these points included: (1) Operation of TCID facilities so as to maximize use of Carson River flows and minimize use of the Truckee River flows; (2) Furnish TCID for irrigation requirements 406,000 acre-feet annually; (3) Freeze TCID water rights at the present level of approximately 74,500 acres; (4) Eliminate the use of water for single-purpose power generation; (5) Withdraw from TCID custody of the 64-acre tract at Lake Tahoe and divert it to public use with no direct remuneration to TCID; (6) TCID to complete payment [of project facilities] in accordance with its existing contractual obligation; (7) To assist in accomplishments of objectives (1) and (2), and in consideration of points (3), (4), (5), and (9), the U.S. will undertake certain rehabilitation programs on a non-reimbursable basis [with a total estimated cost of approximately $3.5 million]; (8) Re-negotiate the three party agreement for the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area in accordance with recent discussions between TCID and USFWS [this action would involve retention of custody of the land by TCID and an agreement on a percentage split of drainage and return flows to the Stillwater area and the Carson Lake [and] Pasture to the south; and (9) Revoke custody of fringe areas of custodial land which are of little value to TCID. [According to correspondence provided by Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, June 3, 1996, this agreement was sent to Washington, D.C., but was never ratified. Nevertheless, TCID "was required to comply with its provisions including the repair of the Truckee Canal which was to be partially reimbursed by the federal government but was not."]

48. Water Resources Data, Nevada, Water Year 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-95-1, Nevada District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Carson City, Nevada, 1996.

49. According to USBR estimates and hydrology model results, the most recent expected diversions at Derby Dam are approximately 109,000 acre-feet per year, of which 69,000 acre-feet would flow into Lahontan Reservoir. [Personal communication, Al Olson, USBR, Lahontan Basin Projects Office, Carson City, NV, July 31, 1996.]

50. Olson, op. cit.

51. Phreatophytes are perennial plants which are very deeply rooted, deriving their water from a more or less permanent, subsurface water supply; they are thus not dependent upon annual precipitation for survival. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

52. The Truckee River USGS gaging station located immediately below (1,500 feet) Derby Dam [gaging station 10351600] does not reflect return flows from the Truckee Canal which are spilled back into the Truckee River above Wadsworth from the Gilpin spill structure and the Pyramid spill structure. These spills occur before the first Truckee Canal USGS gaging station [gaging station 10351300] and are therefore not reflected in that measurement as Truckee Canal diversions for the Newlands Project. Spills from these structures will enter the Truckee River between the gage below Derby Dam and the [abandoned] gage at Wadsworth. Anecdotal evidence indicates that these return flows from the Truckee Canal back into the lower Truckee River have, at times, been substantial. [Personal communications with Saake, op. cit., and Olson, op. cit.]

53. Established in 1931, the Fallon NWR encompasses approximately 17,900 acres (28 square miles) where the Carson River terminates in the Carson Sink and is situated within the northwest portion of the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Due to limited and uncertain flows of the Carson River at its terminus, generally not enough water enters this refuge to maintain it as a viable wetlands. The area is currently managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is included as part of the Stillwater WMA.

54. Located approximately 15 miles east of the City of Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada, and on the edge of the Carson Sink, the Stillwater NWR was formally established in 1991 when 77,500 acres (121 square miles) of the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA) were set aside to preserve critical nesting areas and habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds using the Pacific Flyway in western Nevada. In 1948, in order to preserve a shrinking wetland system, the USFWS and the Nevada Fish and Game Commission entered into an agreement with TCID to develop and manage 24,000 acres (350 square miles) of USBR Newlands Irrigation Project lands, designated as the Stillwater WMA, for wildlife habitat protection and preservation. Today, the Stillwater NWR includes a variety of habitats, from freshwater sloughs and marshes to brackish-water marshes and alkali flats. Each habitat hosts a unique assemblage of plants and invertebrates, which in turn attracts more than 160 bird species and many other animals.

55. Located in Churchill County, Nevada, the Stillwater WMA was established in 1948 and currently consists of 143,866 acres (225 square miles) of lands under joint management by the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

56. The Carson Lake and Pasture was created in 1918 when the U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS, later the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, USBR) fenced off a tract of about 14,700 acres of vacant land in the vicinity of Carson Lake in the southern portion of the Lahontan Valley for the creation of a pasture in which the Newlands Project's water users might graze their surplus stock during the crop growing season. In addition to the fencing, several miles of laterals (canals) were constructed for the irrigation of the area in order to increase the growth of pasture grass. Some 5,000 additional acres were added to this pasture area in 1920. The USRS originally operated the pasture by charging a small rental fee per head of stock grazed. [See Dangberg, Conflict on the Carson, Valley Historical Society, Minden, Nevada, November 1975, page 157.]

57. USFWS water rights purchases will be made for the Stillwater NWR, while State of Nevada water right purchases will be made for Carson Lake and Pasture. These water rights purchases are authorized in Public Law 101-618, Section 206.

58. Water rights acquisitions for the Pyramid Lake fishery are covered in Public Law 101-618, Section 207(c).

59. Project efficiency is a measure of a water distribution system's ability to transport and apply water to a desired effect with a minimum of effort, expense, or waste. With respect to irrigation project efficiency, the following terms generally apply: (1) Canal efficiency--the volume of water diverted into a canal system versus total water available for farm headgate deliveries; (2) Irrigation efficiency--the percentage of water applied that can be accounted for in soil moisture increase; and (3) Farm efficiency--the amount of water actually required for growing a crop compared to the amount of irrigation water that is diverted at the farm headgate. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

60. Churchill County has the fourth highest level of farm marketings in Nevada and is ranked after Lyon, Humboldt, and Elko counties. [See 1987 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 28, Nevada State and County Data, Agriculture Division, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C., June 1989.]

61. Churchill County Agricultural Analysis--An Analysis of the Churchill County Agriculture Sector Using Census Data and County Survey Results, Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, August 1992, Revised November 1995.

62. Correlation analysis is a statistical means to measure the degree of linear relationship, or "coincidence of change" between two variables, producing a value of variance termed the correlation coefficient. In strict correlation analysis, no inference of "causation," i.e., one variable being "explained" by the variations of another, is made. This concept of causation must be shown or inferred by other means, such as previous, or a priori, information that two sampled variables are indeed related to one another. [See Churchill County Correlation Analysis--Correlation Analysis of Churchill County's Primary Economic Indicators, Nevada Division of WaterPlanning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, June 1992, Reprinted November 1995.]

63. "Population of Nevada's Counties and Incorporated Cities," Office of the State Demographer, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, December 19, 1995.

64. 1987 Census of Agriculture, op. cit.

65. See analysis in the following sections of Part I of this chronology for a detailed breakout of distances along each segment of the Carson River's East Fork, West Fork, and mainstem. These figures may also be interpreted from Figure 3, Longitudinal Profile of the Carson River, CARSON RIVER ATLAS, op. cit., page 6.

66. For the 1960-1995 period of record.

67. For the 1901-1995 period of record.

68. Recorded at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 1030820 (below Markleeville, California), and USGS gaging station 10310000 (at Woodfords, California). [See USGS Water Resources Data, Nevada, op. cit.]

69. On the afternoon of December 18, 1872, probably the most notorious murder in Alpine County took place at Fisk's Hotel in Silver Mountain City. On that afternoon, one Ernest Reusch stood outside the hotel and cold bloodedly murdered E.H. Errickson who was playing cards inside. Apparently, Errickson had recently won over the affection of Reusch's bride of only two weeks. After making sure that Errickson was dead, Reusch turned himself in to the authorities. In June 1873 a grand jury indicted Reusch for murder and a change of venue was granted to hold the trial in Bridgeport, located in Mono County. Anticipating that a lengthy trial would drain the treasury of Alpine County, at 10 p.m. on the night of April 18, 1874, a group of masked vigilantes waited at this bridge and intercepted the party transporting Reusch to trial in Bridgeport. Without resistance, Reusch was removed from custody and thrown from the bridge with a hangman's noose around his neck. Reusch was subsequently buried in the Markleeville cemetery. The Coroner's Inquest failed to identify the exact nature of the incident or the names of any of the participants. [See Murphy, Shane, The Lore and Legend of the East Fork--A Historical Guide for Floating the East Carson River, The Carson River Conservation Fund, Zephyr Cove, Nevada, 1982, pages 36-39.]

70. An ephemeral stream is a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and thus discontinues its flow during dry seasons. Such flow is usually of short duration. Most of the dry washes of more arid regions may be classified as ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams are different from intermittent (or seasonal) streams, which flow only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs, rainfall, or from surface sources such as melting snow. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

71. Acid mine drainage represents the acidic water that flows into streams from abandoned mines or piles of mining waste or tailings. The acid arises from the oxidation of iron sulfide compounds in the mines by air, dissolved oxygen in the water, and chemoautotrophs, which are bacteria that can use the iron sulfide as an energy source. Iron sulfide oxidation products include sulfuric acid, the presence of which has reduced or eliminated aquatic life in many streams in mining regions. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

72. The Leviathan Mine is one of a number of abandoned mine sites in the upper Carson River Basin. According to information provided by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, along the East Fork of the Carson River there are 34 known abandoned mine sites (31 gold and silver, 1 tungsten, 1 mercury, and 1 sulfur--Leviathan). Along the West Fork of the Carson River there are nine known abandoned mine sites (3 copper, 4 tungsten, and 2 gold and silver). The two most conspicuous of these abandoned mine sites, and the ones of greatest potential environmental harm, are the Leviathan Mine and the Vaca Mine, located to the south of the Leviathan Mine site along Monitor Pass and Monitor Creek. [Personal communication, Bruce Warden, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, July 31, 1996.]

73. According to Katherine Schoen, Water Resource Control Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region,, Leviathan Creek's waters remain toxic to this day, particularly during periods of high runoff during the spring. As a result, virtually no fish have been observed in Leviathan Creek or Bryant Creek all the way to the East Fork of the Carson River. In an average year, approximately three million gallons overflow from holding ponds erected on the mine site; during the high-water year of 1996, approximately eight million gallons of acid mine drainage overflowed from the evaporation holding ponds into Leviathan Creek. A continuous source of pollution to this creek system in the underdrain pipe erected beneath the spoil dump which contains springs which percolate through the mine residue. A California program to correct this channel underdrain system, prevent evaporation holding pond overflow, and re-vegetate the site remains in effect. [Personal communication, Katherine Schoen, Water Resource Control Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, July 26, 1996.]

74. While no pre-mining water quality data exists, in a letter written by California Department of Fish and Game Warden Artie G. Brown, he stated that Leviathan Creek was always polluted downstream of the Leviathan Mine as evidenced by yellow colored water and yellow sediment ("yellowboy") deposited on the bottom of the stream bed. Therefore, mining activity may have only worsened a pre-existing condition. Even so, fish were reportedly caught in Bryant Creek as late as May 1953, indicating that such a condition was not nearly as severe as after the mining began. [See Leviathan Mine 5-Year Workplan, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, California Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, July 1995, page 11.]

75. Leviathan Mine 5-Year Workplan, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, California Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, Sacramento, California, July 1995, page 11.

76. Dissolved oxygen represents the amount of free (not chemically combined) oxygen dissolved in water, wastewater, or other liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter, parts per million, or percent of saturation. Adequate concentrations of dissolved oxygen are necessary for the life of fish and other aquatic organisms and the prevention of offensive odors. Dissolved oxygen levels are considered the most important and commonly employed measurement of water quality and provide and important indicator of a water body's ability to support desirable aquatic life. The ideal dissolved oxygen level for fish is between 7 and 9 milligrams per liter (mg/l); most fish cannot survive at levels below 3 mg/l of dissolved oxygen. Secondary and advanced wastewater treatment techniques are generally designed to ensure adequate dissolved oxygen in waste-receiving waters. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

77. Leviathan Mine 5-Year Workplan, op. cit., pages 6-12 and 28.

78. Dangberg, Conflict on the Carson, op. cit., pages 2 and 70.

79. Measured at Woodfords, California, on the West Fork, and at Markleeville, California, on the East Fork.

80. Writing in 1860, Henry DeGroot reported that "After leaving this valley [Hope Valley] it [the West Fork] rushes through the wild and rocky defile known as Carson Cañon, an impetuous torrent, falling twelve hundred feet in five miles." [See Dangberg, Conflict on the Carson, op. cit., page 1.]

81. Between 1856 and 1864, John "Snowshoe" Thompson, a native of Norway, fashioned his own skis and volunteered to carry the mails between Placerville ("Hangtown"), California, and Genoa, Nevada, when the snows along "Hangtown Road" became too deep for normal equestrian travel. [See Murphy, op. cit., page 45.]

82. Written communication, R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Nevada Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada, March 15, 1996.

83. Nearly three miles after the West Fork crosses the California-Nevada state line, it bifurcates into the West Fork and Brockliss Slough, with most of the flows going down the Brockliss Slough. From this point to its confluence with the East Fork near Genoa, the West Fork serves primarily as a catchment for irrigation return flow from the western side of the East Fork. USGS water budget information, along with field observations and data obtained from the federal watermaster, indicate that when the streamflow in the West Fork is less than about 80 cubic feet per second, all flow from the West Fork is diverted into Brockliss Slough. The East Fork, West Fork, and Brockliss Slough then combine near Genoa, Nevada, to form the mainstem Carson River. [See Hess, Glen W., "Progress Report on Daily-Flow Routing Simulation for the Carson River, California and Nevada," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-211, USGS, Water Resources Division, Carson City, Nevada, 1996, page 6 and 14.]

84. Downstream from Carson Valley on the Carson River, most of the ungaged tributaries are ephemeral and therefore do not typically supply a significant volume of water to the Carson River. [See Hess, op. cit., page 12.]

85. See History of Flooding--Carson Valley and Carson City Watershed, USDA Special Report on Water and Related Land Resources, Central Lahontan Basin, Carson River Sub-Basin, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Carson City, Nevada, November 1973. The figures listed here are those presented later in the chronology section (Part III) and were reported in the source reference under the detailed occurrence of each flood event. Somewhat incongruently, in the introduction of this source work (page 1), different figures were noted for these flood events. For example, for the 1937 flood, peak flow rates for the East and West forks were 10,300 cfs and 3,500 cfs, respectively; for the 1950 flood event, 12,100 cfs and 4,730 cfs, respectively; and for the 1955 flood event, 17,600 cfs and 4,810 cfs, respectively. These differences may be attributable to differences between instantaneous peaks (maximum recorded) and daily means, although the source reference made no such distinction.

86. This site has historic significance in terms of early conflicts along the Carson River between the Carson Valley farmers and the mill men on the lower Carson River in Dayton Valley below Empire City. It was at this point along the river's reach, generally considered near the river's exit from the Carson Valley, that the mill men, in their first major legal suit against the Carson Valley ranchers over water rights (Union Mill and Mining Company v. H.F. Dangberg, et al.), demanded a perpetual right to a year-round flow of 6,000 miners inches, equivalent to 150 cubic feet per second (cfs), or nearly 110,000 acre-feet per year.

87. Empire City, located at the head of Dayton Valley, represented an historic site during the Comstock era. It was here that the massive log drives from the upper Carson River Basin generally terminated, although sometimes "deliveries" of wood were made along the Carson River through Dayton Valley to individual mills. At this location the huge square-cut timbers and cord wood were removed from the river, cut into usable timbers and planks, and hauled up to the Comstock to continue the excavation of the mines and provide power for the mine hoists and other equipment. It has been estimated that during a 30-year period in the late 1800s, approximately 35 million board feet, or some 5 million cords of wood were removed from the upper reaches of the basin and floated down the Carson River to Empire City. Eventually, the once vast forests of the upper Carson River Basin were reduced to isolated pockets of timber cut back from the river by a mile to a mile and a half. [See Murphy, op. cit., page 45.]

88. Dangberg, Conflict on the Carson, op. cit., page 7.

89. Land, Barbara and Myrick, A Short History of Reno, University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada, 1995, page 25.

90. Shamberger, Hugh A., Water Supply for the Comstock, Prepared in Cooperation with Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City Nevada, 1969, Statistical Summary, page xi.

91. Benson, Larry V., "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," op. cit., page 1.

92. Irrigation of farmlands between Lahontan Reservoir and the Carson Diversion Dam is done through the Rock Dam Ditch, which takes off from the lower Carson River just below Lahontan Dam. [Saake, op. cit.]

93. Alpine Decree, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Tabulation and Administrative Provisions, United States of America v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, a Corporation, et al., op. cit.

94. Benson, Larry V., "Fluctuation in the Level of Pluvial Lake Lahontan During the Last 40,000 Years," op. cit., pages 303-306.

95. The Quaternary age or period covers the Pleistocene (Ice Age) and Holocene (present-day) epochs, from approximately 1.8 million years ago to the present.

96. Reconnaissance Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment and Biota Associated with Irrigation Drainage in and near Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, Churchill County, Nevada, 1986-87, Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4105, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada, 1990, page 7.

97. Dangberg, Conflict on the Carson, op. cit., pages 2 and 70.

98. Ibid., page 29.

99. The Winters Rights Decision represented the U.S. Supreme Court precedent decision (Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 [1908]) in which the Court prohibited any uses by non-Indians that interfered with the Indian tribes' use of their reserved water. In Winters, the Court held that when reservations were established, Indian tribes and the Unites States implicitly reserved, along with the land, sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservations. The ruling rests on the principle that Indian tribes retain all rights not explicitly relinquished. These federal reserved water rights are commonly known as "Winters Rights" as based on the "Winters Doctrine." The court recognized these rights as having a priority date coinciding with the date the reservation was established, thus providing a means to integrate federally reserved rights with appropriative water rights recognized under state law. Since reserved rights are not created by state law, Winters Rights retain their validity and seniority regardless of whether tribes have put the water to beneficial use. On-going conflicts concerning this ruling tend to involve non-Indian water users appropriating water under state law, water that previously may have been reserved for Indian tribes, though never quantified by courts or fully used on reservations. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

100. Gourley, Chad, "Historic Overview of Modifications to the Truckee River Ecosystem," The Truckee River Times, Volume 6, Number 2, May 1996, page 3.

101. Pyramid Lake's Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi), which were introduced into the lake from Walker Lake in the 1950s, were classified as in danger of extinction in 1970, but then reclassified as threatened in 1975 in order to allow for their management and regulated fishing. [See Truckee River Chronology, op. cit.]

102. From data tabulated by Sierra Hydrotech from TCID diversion records. [USBR, Lahontan Basin Projects Office, Carson City, Nevada.]

103. This gaging station is located on the Truckee Canal, 22.94 miles upstream from the terminal weir at Lahontan Reservoir, and nearly 10 miles downstream from Derby Dam.

104. Water Resources Data, Nevada, op. cit., various issues.

105. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its precedent-setting Winters Rights Decision (Winters v. United States) in 1908 by which the Court prohibited any uses by non-Indians that interfered with Indian tribes' use of their reserved water. While the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe was granted water rights for irrigation of lands on the reservation, they have argued that their heritage is linked not to agriculture, i.e., irrigation water, but to the Pyramid Lake fishery.

106. The Endangered Species Act was an act passed by Congress in 1973 intended to protect species and subspecies of plants and animals that are of "aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific value." It may also protect the listed species' "critical habitat", the geographic area occupied by, or essential to, the protected species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share authority to list endangered species, determine critical habitat and develop recovery plans for listed species. Currently, approximately 830 animals and 270 plants are listed as endangered or threatened nationwide at Title 50, Part 17, sections 11 and 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Further, under a settlement with environmental groups, USFWS has agreed to propose listing another 400 species over the next few years. The 1973 Endangered Species Act superseded and strengthened the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. The 1973 provisions required that the act be re-authorized by Congress every five years. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

107. Janik, C. Anne, and Ronald M. Anglin, "Nevada's Unique Wildlife Oasis," Dividing Desert Waters, Nevada Public Affairs Review, Number 1, 1992, Senator Alan Bible Center for Applied Research, University of Nevada, Reno, page 57.

108. The standard flask of mercury contains 34.5 kilograms, or 76 pounds.

109. Cooper, James J., Richard O. Thomas, S. Michael Reed, Total Mercury in Sediment, Water, and Fishes in the Carson River Drainage, West-Central Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada, December 1985, page 1.

110. "Carson River Mercury Superfund Site," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California, December 1994 and June 1995.

111. Based on its study of the Carson River Mercury Site (CRMS), the EPA proposed to address six areas where mercury levels in soils were found to be of potential concern. These included five areas in Dayton on the Carson River and one area in Silver City up Sixmile Canyon. It was also proposed that the Silver City site and four of the sites in Dayton were to be addressed by the excavation alternative, i.e., removing the contaminated soil and backfilling. The sixth site was the ditch which conveys water from Gold Canyon to the Carson River. It was proposed that this area to be fenced off to limit public access. [See "Carson River Mercury Superfund Site," op. cit.]

112. Reno-Gazette Journal, October 13, 1995, page 2B.

113. As a result of the EPA's designation of a much larger, 2,000 square-mile area of the Carson River Basin stretching essentially from the Carson Sink to Markleeville, California, as a "study area," it was reported that several businesses had deferred from relocating to the 800-acre Dayton Industrial Park. One of these included Connecticut-based Stanley Tool Company, which subsequently purchased property in Fernley, Nevada, and another Fortune 500 company (unnamed) which reportedly balked at locating in Dayton over this issue. U.S. Senator Richard Bryan (Nevada) subsequently met with EPA Director Carol Browner in order to encourage the EPA to more narrowly define the designated "study area" and ease these concerns. In June 1996, the EPA responded to this request and dramatically reduced the study area. [See Nevada Appeal, June 25, 1996.]

114. According to testimony presented in the hearing on water right Application 9330, the capacity of the Truckee Canal is actually about 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs); however, at that level it is dangerously close to overtopping and plugging. Consequently, nominally, they try to keep the diversion at around 900 cfs. [Turnipseed, op. cit.]

115. De Bruyn, David, Potential Water Conservation Measures--Newlands Project, Prepared under the Request of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior on Matters Dealing with Public Law 101-618 [Negotiated Settlement], April 1992, page 23.

116. WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.

117. Turnipseed, op. cit.

118. Reno Gazette-Journal, December 3, 1995, pages 1C and 4C.

119. Reno Gazette-Journal, December 12, 1995, page 2B, and Lahontan Valley News, Fallon, Nevada, December 12, 1995.

120. Reno Gazette-Journal, August 3, 1995, page 1B, and personal conversation with Al Olson, Lahontan Basin Projects Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Carson City Office, August 29, 1995.

121. Turnipseed, op. cit., and Nevada Appeal, Carson City, Nevada, November 14, 1995, page A9.

122. Water right application file 9330, op. cit.

123. For a listing of current diversions out of the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins, see Truckee River Chronology, op. cit.

124. CARSON RIVER ATLAS, op. cit., pages 95-96.

125. Public Law 101-618, Section 209.(a)(1)(B).

126. California-Nevada Interstate Compact Between the State of California and Nevada, op. cit., Article VII, Paragraph E, page 20.

127. See Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 538.600 and Chapter 1480, California Statutes 1970.

128. The Carson River Basin also receives some inflows from the Walker River Basin (via Adrian Valley) and from the Humboldt River Basin (via the Humboldt Slough from the Humboldt Sink). While the Walker River Basin inflows are typically infrequent and inconsequential, flows from the Humboldt Sink have, on occasion, been substantial. See, for example, entry for December 1986 in Part III of this chronology.

129. Reno Gazette-Journal, April 30, 1996, page 3B.

130. In addition to the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), sewage treatment and transfer of effluent out of the Lake Tahoe Basin is handled by two other utilities: The North Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe City Public Utility District. These entities service the sewage collection needs of the west side of Lake Tahoe from the service area of the STPUD north to the California-Nevada state line at Crystal Bay, Nevada. Sewage is transported to the Tahoe-Truckee Sewage Treatment Plant at Truckee, California, where it receives advanced tertiary treatment and then is infiltrated into the ground. Therefore, these waters remain within the Truckee River Basin.

131. The difference represents the consumptive use of the Truckee Division of the Newlands Project below the Truckee Canal, consisting of approximately 5,300 acres of primarily bench lands, as well as operational losses (evaporation, seepage, etc.). For a more recent period of record, 1988-1994, these figures showed an average of 167,760 acre-feet per year being diverted at Derby Dam into the Truckee Canal and 134,370 acre-feet per year entering Lahontan Reservoir, resulting in approximately 80 percent of total diversions reaching the Carson River.

132. The concept of "rotation" involves operating the Carson River as autonomous sections (segments) that will receive water during a given interval. In this way water rights holders along the entire reach will have an equal opportunity to use the waters virtually irrespective of the rate of flow. This concept was initially fashioned when the farmers in Carson Valley deferred all water use (diversions) during certain intervals, thereby allowing the loggers ("wood men") to move their logs along a certain portion of the river. After that interval, the wood drive would halt and the farmers were then allowed to resume diversions for their interval.

133. Riparian rights represent the system for allocating water used in England and the eastern United States. Under the "riparian doctrine," ownership of land along a stream or river (i.e., riparian lands) is an absolute prerequisite to a right to use water from that body of water and each such landowner has an equal right to the water (whether or not he is presently using it or not).

134. Nevada's water law is based on statutes enacted in 1903 and 1905 and are founded on the principal of "prior appropriation." Unlike some other states, Nevada has a statewide system for the administration of both groundwater and surface water. Appropriative water rights are based on the concept of applying water to "beneficial use" and "First in Time, First in Right." Appropriative water rights can be lost through nonuse and abandonment and they may be sold or transferred apart from the land. Due in large part to the relative scarcity of water in Nevada and numerous competing uses, Nevada has had a active market for water transfers for a number of years. A person in Nevada who desires to place water to beneficial use must file an application with the State Engineer to initiate the process of acquiring an appropriative water right.

135. Equivalent to an annual net consumptive use of surface water for irrigation of 2.99 acre-feet per acre per year. This annual net consumptive use, or "crop water requirement," was based on the water duty of alfalfa as it is a dominant and the highest water-using crop grown in Nevada

136. Equivalent to an annual net consumptive use of surface water for irrigation of 2.5 acre-feet per acre per year.

137. The crop irrigation requirement is amount of irrigation water in acre-feet per acre required by the crop; it is the difference between "Crop Consumptive Use," or "Crop Requirement," and the effective precipitation for plant growth. To this amount the following items, as applicable, are added: (1) irrigation applied prior to crop growth; (2) water required for leaching; (3) miscellaneous requirements of germination, frost protection, plant cooling, etc.; and (4) the decrease in soil moisture should be subtracted. [See WATER WORDS DICTIONARY, op. cit.]

138. From the time that TCID took over the operation of the Newlands Project in 1927 up until 1969, it periodically permitted the project farmers to use project waters for irrigation of lands not described in their contracts in preference to irrigation of lands described in the contracts where it had become impractical to use water beneficially or economically. In permitting these informal transfers of water rights, it was believed that Nevada's water laws did not apply to project water rights and the federal government had no procedures for formal authorization of these transfers. While seemingly innocuous at the time, these actions would eventually have important implications on the concept of the water rights "appurtenant to the land," as specified in the 1980 Alpine Decree, the potential for increasing the project's consumptive use when such transfers were permitted between bottom lands (water duty of 3.5 acre-feet per acre per year) and bench lands (water duty of 4.5 acre-feet per acre per year), the applicability of Nevada Water Law and the concepts of abandonment and forfeiture, and efforts by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe to invalidate some of these transfers which they claimed had been abandoned before transfers were made, hence invalidating the State Engineer's subsequent approval of these changes in place of use. Hearings are to be held in late 1996 (October and November) to resolve these disputes.

139. Alpine Decree, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Tabulation and Administrative Provisions, op. cit., pages 3-4.

140. This adjudication of water rights of the Truckee River within Nevada arose in March 1913 when the U.S. Reclamation Service filed a "friendly lawsuit" (U.S. v. Orr Ditch Water Company, et al.) in order to quantify Truckee River water rights within Nevada so as to obtain its own water rights for the Truckee-Carson (Newlands) Irrigation Project. Despite the initial "friendly" intent of the lawsuit, it took over 30 years to finalize that decree.

141. Admittedly, part of this increased lake volume came from small inflows of local surface and ground water, plus precipitation falling directly on the lake's surface. It was estimated that over the period of 1929-1969, average lake surface precipitation totaled approximately 55,000 acre-feet per year.

142. The Carson River Basin snow pack water content figures produced an average of 98 percent, a standard deviation (variability about this mean or average value) of 50 percent, and t-value (the series mean divided by the standard deviation) of 1.95. This t-value figure indicates that the period average approximated the true mean (100 percent) at a level of statistical confidence of nearly 90 percent.

143. Benson, Larry V., "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," op. cit., page 2.

144. See Benson, "Fluctuation in the Level of Pluvial Lake Lahontan During the Last 40,000 Years," op. cit.

145. See Benson, "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," op. cit.

146. Houghton, op. cit., page 73.

147. Benson, "Fluctuation in the Level of Pluvial Lake Lahontan During the Last 40,000 Years," op. cit., page 316.

148. Benson, "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," op. cit., page 1.

149. Initial Bench & Bottom Land, Map and Criteria, op. cit., page 12.

150. Benson, "Preliminary Paleolimnologic Data for the Walker Lake Sub-Basin, California and Nevada," op. cit., page 1.