alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mae L. Anderson, Respondent, v. Helen P. Brown, Individually and as Executrix of Elmer S. Anderson, Deceased, Appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: In view of the disposition herein made, we do not at this time determine whether the six-year or the ten-year Statute of Limitations applies. That question may be raised again when the real situation is disclosed from the pleadings or by facts appearing upon the trial. (See *Goldstein*v. *Schachne,*261 App. Div. 922; *Hurley*v. *Hurley,*266 App. Div. 701.) All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in an action to declare a quitclaim deed null and void.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Shareholders


Eagle Financial Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 (No.  33-28403) and Form S-8 (No.  33-46092) of Eagle Financial Corp. of our
report dated October 17, 1996,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of
Eagle  Financial  Corp. and  Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated  statements of income,  shareholders'  equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year  period ended  September 30, 1996,
which  appears as an Exhibit to, and is  incorporated  by  reference  into,  the
September 30, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Eagle Financial Corp.

Our report refers to changes in methods of accounting for investment  securities
in 1995,  and  methods of  accounting  for  postretirement  benefits  other than
pensions and income taxes in 1994.



KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
December 30, 1996
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A2117. CAPRICE MOSES v. OMNI INDEMNITY COMPANY.

In this civil action, defendant Caprice Moses filed this direct appeal from the

trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement.

We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” An

order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement “is not final until the trial

court expressly enters final judgment on that order.” Thomas v. Sheppard, 349 Ga.

App. 871, 871 (827 SE2d 60) (2019) (punctuation omitted). Thus, “notwithstanding

the trial court’s grant of a motion to enforce a settlement, a case is not at an end until

such time as the agreement has been made the judgment of the court, thereby

terminating the litigation.” Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga. App. 135, 139 (1) (730 SE2d 518)

(2012) (punctuation omitted); accord Underwood v. Underwood, 282 Ga. 643, 644

(1) (651 SE2d 736) (2007).

Here, the record contains no indication that the trial court has entered a final

judgment and made the settlement agreement the judgment of the court.

Consequently, because no final judgment has been entered, Moses was required to

follow the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of

immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the order granting the plaintiff’s

motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State,

191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Her failure to do so deprives us of

July 30, 2020
jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266

Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/30/2020
#### Keith BRUNDIGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Police Officer BASSETT, A.D. Brown, G.A. Adam, and Prince William County Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2006-1384.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 23, 2006.

Keith Brundige, pro se.

*ORDER*

On June 1, 2006 the court issued an order allowing the parties 14 days to object to the transfer of this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. No response has been submitted within the time allowed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 220.55

 221.25

 221.04

 221.83

 221.07

 220.86

 220.56

 221.04

 221.36

 222.21

 222.27

 222.21

 222.13

 221.81

 222.20

 222.95

 223.18

 222.51

 222.75

 223.19

 223.07

 223.55

 221.88

 222.59

 221.88

 222.18

 222.41

 221.07

 221.38

 222.79

 224.20

 44,583

 46,416

 45,865

 47,940

 45,944

 45,394

 44,609

 45,865

 46,705

 48,942

 49,102

 48,942

 48,730

 47,887

 48,916

 50,913

 51,527

 49,740

 50,379

 51,554

 51,233

 52,518

 48,071

 49,953

 48,071

 48,863

 49,474

 45,944

 46,758

 50,486

 54,266

STORAGE

+2,207

+1,833

-551

+2,075

-1,996

-550

-785

+1,256

+840

+2,237

+160

-160

-212

-843

+1,029

+1,997

+614

-1,787

+639

+1,175

-321

+1,285

-4,447

+1,882

-1,882

+792

+611

-3,530

+814

+3,728

+3,780

CHANGE

758

767

1,287

1,563

1,439

1,347

1,367

1,529

1,661

1,560

1,575

1,626

1,104

861

800

780

800

801

779

787

800

800

856

879

876

893

893

907

915

1,416

2,042

PUMPING

 252

 303

 300

 152

 208

 0

 507

 383

 428

 453

 630

 927

 596

 1,427

 312

 321

 537

 210

 841

 856

 2,141

 1,007

 1,566

 1,006

 1,763

 1,543

 1,142

 2,450

 1,286

 556

 788

PUMPING

 715

 1,745

 2,902

 2,379

 3,239

 3,262

 2,283

 1,773

 1,780

 2,495

 2,371

 1,908

 1,872

 1,132

 1,699

 755

 1,132

 2,776

 750

 750

 0

 378

 2,839

 740

 1,831

 0

 863

 1,957

 730

 1,461

 1,719

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

GEN.

*

+32

+799

+170

+296

+1

+414

+180

+89

-277

+640

+39

+90

+158

+106

+144

+129

+24

+301

+153

+11

-107

+92

+252

+81

+36

-41

-106

+336

+40

+268

+40

OR

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL O'NEILL FOREBAY January 5, 2009

DAILY OPERATIONS

DECEMBER 2008 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE GEN.

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +11,890 34,468 0 50,236 24,891 +4,390

ACRE-FEET +11,890 68,367 0 99,643 49,371

SUMMARY

 0

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

O'NEILL GEN. 0

SAN LUIS PUMP 99,643 0

 42,376

DOS AMIGOS PUMP 49,371

DELIVERIES 

S. LUIS O'NEILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 370

 370

 432

 0

 0

 124

 373

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,669

 3,310

CALIF. DOS AMIGOS

AQUEDUCT

1,290

1,406

1,467

1,717

1,001

1,224

847

1,171

878

1,505

1,036

1,038

1,101

1,044

1,213

1,175

1,155

984

982

1,401

1,286

1,141

1,056

1,735

1,732

1,090

1,527

1,384

1,471

2,213

2,330

 40,600

 80,530

S. LUIS

DELIV.

GAINS(+)

LOSS(-)

C.F.S.

INFLOW - C.F.S

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

TOTAL 149,014

 8,708

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 802

 813

 777

 761

 760

 757

 759

 793

 817

 890

 916

 950

 955

 917

 914

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,088

 0

 1,192

 1,314

 1,521

 1,710

 1,762

 1,790

 1,867

 1,932

 1,947

 1,955

 590

 599

 584

 588

 597

 598

 607

 630

 639

 664

 690

 672

 667

 650

 661

 0

 0

 0

 0

 726

 0

 826

 897

 950

 1,009

 1,043

 1,053

 1,138

 1,218

 1,286

 1,307

 713

 708

 700

 696

 697

 694

 692

 704

 718

 742

 769

 781

 798

 796

 803

 0

 0

 0

 0

 905

 0

 998

 1,056

 1,129

 1,248

 1,351

 1,416

 1,519

 1,605

 1,649

 1,685

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 19, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8946]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 28, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Mark T. Mowat, Omaha, Nebraska, as a member of a group acting in 
concert; to acquire control of Frontier Management, LLC, Omaha, 
Nebraska, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Frontier Holdings, 
LLC, Omaha, Nebraska; Frontier Bank, Madison, Nebraska; Frontier Bank, 
Davenport, Nebraska; and Pender State Bank, Pender, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 8, 2011.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-8946 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 71

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 71 appear by T.D. ATF-414, 64 FR 49084, Sept. 10, 1999and T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42734, 42735, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 71.63 Suspension, revocation, or annulment proceedings.

If the respondent does not request a hearing within the time specified in § 71.60, and does not file an answer as required in § 71.64, the appropriate TTB officer shall make the initial decision in the case in accordance with § 71.79.

[T.D. ATF-244, 51 FR 45763, Dec. 22, 1986, as amended by T.D. ATF-374, 61 FR 29957, June 13, 1996]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50294 

Summary Calendar

 

DEBRA LYNN PATMORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; 

VICTOR RODRIQUEZ, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; 

ALL EIGHTEEN MEMBERS OF THE PAROLE BOARD; 

THOMAS MOSS, AMARILLO DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-744

- - - - - - - - - -

October 28, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Debra Lynn Patmore, # 603941, appeals the dismissal of her civil rights complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Patmore contends that when the defendants denied her parole

review and release, they denied her due process and equal protection, that the Texas statutes in

effect at the time that her offense was committed created a liberty interest in parole, that her
No. 96-50294

- 2 -

parole was denied in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, that she was being forced to serve her

sentence “two times over,” that she should be brought up for parole annually, and that her Eighth

Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was violated when she was denied parole. 

We have reviewed the record and Patmore’s brief and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for

essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Patmore v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and

Paroles, No. A-95-CV-744 (W.D. Tex. April 8, 1996).
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Motion of 

EXECUTIVE AIRLINES, INC. 

d/b/a AMERICAN EAGLE 

DOT-OST-1996-

1587 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7) 

MOTION OF EXECUTIVE AIRLINES, INC. 

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

PEDRO FABREGAS 

President 

Executive Airlines, Inc. 

American Eagle 

P.O. Box 38082 Airport Sta. 

San Juan, P.R. 00937-0082 

KATHLEEN SOLED 

Vice President & General Counsel 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5494 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261 

(817) 967-1574 

kate.soled@aa.com 

May 10, 2013 

FRANCIS C. HEIL 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 496-5642 

francis.heil@aa.com 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Motion of 

EXECUTIVE AIRLINES, INC. 

d/b/a AMERICAN EAGLE 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-

1587 

MOTION OF EXECUTIVE AIRLINES, INC. 

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

Executive Airlines, Inc., d/b/a American Eagle, under 14 

CFR 302.12, hereby moves that its Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 

1Q2013, be accorded confidential treatment and withheld from 

public disclosure. The information for which confidential 

treatment is requested pertains to Executive's airframes and 

aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements. 

In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on Submitting Airline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 

41582, we are uploading our confidential report electronically 

to the following website: http://esubmit.rita.dot.gov 

On June 5, 1995, James W. Mitchell, Director, Office of 

Airline Statistics, the Department granted confidential treatment for a 10-year period to similar data filed by American 

Airlines. For the reasons stated in Mr. Mitchell's letter, the 

Department should grant the same relief here. 
2 -

WHEREFORE, Executive moves that the schedule referenced 

above be withheld from public disclosure under Rule 12 for a 

period of 10 years. 

May 10, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

FRANCIS C. HEIL 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines, Inc. 

On behalf of Executive 

Airlines, Inc.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Rule 420

420-1 RULE 420. LIVESTOCK FEED YARDS (Adopted 11/19/85; revised 9/14/99; 08/13/2002) A. Applicability Any Person using or operating a Livestock F eed Yard shall acquire and maintain a "Livestock Feed Yard Certificate." Appli cation, fee and renewal requirements for such a certificate shall be substantially the same as those set out in Regulation II for permits, except as hereinafter provided. B. Requirements An application for a Livestock Feed Yard certificate shall include a written plan designed to effectively control Dust. Such Dust control plan shall contain the following: B.1 Procedures for assuring Manure at all times is maintained at a moisture factor between 20% and 40%, in the top three inches (3") in occupied pens. B.2 An outline of Manure management practices, including standards and time tables for Manure removal, designed to effectively control Dust and to prevent adverse public health conditions. C. Penalties The Air Pollution Control Officer shall grant a certificate upon receiving a Dust control plan which he believes is reasonab ly designed to meet the criteria set forth in B.1 and B.2 above. Failure of a Person operating or using an anim al confinement facility to comply with the terms of an approved Dust control plan shall be grounds for certificate revocation and/or for imposition of other penalties and sanctions contained in the District's rules and regulations. D. Exceptions The Air Pollution Control Officer may grant exception to the provisions of section B.1 only for the following: D.1 An exception to the minimum 20% moisture content limit may be granted for a period of up to sixty (60) days in any fi scal year, provided a written application is submitted describing in detail an alternat ive dust control plan. The alternative dust control plan shall contain measures to c ontrol Dust as effectively as to assure compliance with Rule 401, Opacity, and Rule 407, Nuisance. D.2 An exception to the maximum 40% moisture content limit may be allowed during rainy periods, as defined in Rule 101, Definitions. E. Test MethodsImperial County Air Pollution Control District Rule 420

420-2 The following test method shall be used to determine manure moisture content within occupied pens at the livestock feed yards. E.1 The corrals shall be sample d in such a manner as to be representative of the feedlot. No fewer than 10% of the total number of occupied corrals shall be tested. Selection shall be random and must have at least four (4) inches of manure base for the test to be valid. Boot covers shall be worn to help prevent transport of biological contaminants into the corrals. E.2 Random samples shall be taken throughout each selected corral. The moisture content of manure shall be determined with an electrical conductivity moisture meter. Moisture reading sha ll be taken by introducing the probe three inch es into the manure. All readings shall be recorded.
#### § 19.287 Gauging of alcoholic flavoring materials.

Generally, alcoholic flavoring material must be gauged when dumped. However, when received from a manufacturer in a closed, nonporous container such material may be gauged by using the proof shown on the container label or a related statement of proof from the manufacturer. When the proof is determined from a label or manufacturer's statement, the proprietor will test a sufficient number of samples to verify the accuracy of the proof so determined. TTB may require that alcoholic flavoring materials be gauged by the methods provided in part 30 of this chapter.

(26 U.S.C. 5204, 5559)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo De La TORRE-INFANTE, also known as Ricardo Acosta, also known as Ricardo De La Torre-Acosta, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51397

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant,

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ricardo De La Torre-Infante raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
###### Editorial Note on Part 479

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 479 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3752, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 479.181 Penalties.

Any person who violates or fails to comply with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties imposed under 26 U.S.C. 5871.

[T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55843, Sept. 28, 1979]
STORAGE - A.F. RESERVOIR CHANGE NEW MELONES NATURAL ACCUM * FULL

Day DONNELLS

RESERVOIR

BEARDSLEY

RESERVOIR

TOTAL A.F. C.F.S. INFLOW C.F.S RIVER C.F.S NATURAL 

1000 A.F.

1 59,316 80,688 140,004 -777 -392 1,039 647 2,336.6

2 58,735 80,402 139,137 -867 -437 946 509 2,337.6

3 58,531 79,811 138,342 -795 -401 941 540 2,338.7

4 58,760 78,848 137,608 -734 -370 992 622 2,339.9

5 58,287 78,515 136,802 -806 -406 994 588 2,341.1

6 58,161 77,746 135,907 -895 -451 1,060 609 2,342.3

7 57,958 77,031 134,989 -918 -463 1,081 618 2,343.5

8 57,561 76,522 134,083 -906 -457 1,075 618 2,344.7

9 57,467 75,858 133,325 -758 -382 1,052 670 2,346.1

10 57,528 74,834 132,362 -963 -486 1,051 283 2,346.6

11 57,435 74,099 131,534 -828 -417 1,135 720 2,348.0

12 57,366 73,308 130,674 -860 -434 1,108 674 2,349.4

13 57,139 72,636 129,775 -899 -453 1,192 739 2,350.8

14 56,651 72,228 128,879 -896 -452 1,067 615 2,352.1

15 56,205 71,719 127,924 -955 -481 1,167 686 2,353.4

16 55,892 71,035 126,927 -997 -503 1,077 574 2,354.6

17 55,731 70,274 126,005 -922 -465 1,217 752 2,356.1

18 55,435 69,624 125,059 -946 -477 975 498 2,357.0

19 54,977 69,109 124,086 -973 -491 1,210 719 2,358.5

20 54,830 68,327 123,157 -929 -468 1,056 588 2,359.6

21 54,061 68,177 122,238 -919 -463 1,236 773 2,361.2

22 53,453 67,859 121,312 -926 -467 1,092 625 2,362.4

23 53,193 67,144 120,337 -975 -492 1,150 658 2,363.7

24 53,123 66,234 119,357 -980 -494 1,221 727 2,365.2

25 53,036 65,359 118,395 -962 -485 1,179 694 2,366.5

26 52,569 64,868 117,437 -958 -483 876 393 2,367.3

27 51,952 64,506 116,458 -979 -494 1,141 647 2,368.6

28 51,539 63,932 115,471 -987 -498 975 477 2,369.5

29 50,995 63,506 114,501 -970 -489 1,202 713 2,371.0

30 50,544 62,971 113,515 -986 -497 1,120 623 2,372.2

Totals -27,266 18,599

Acre - Feet 36,891

* October 1, 2022 to date

Historical Archive and Report Database

Full Natural Flow At New Melones Dam

 September 2023 

 Run Date: 10/10/2023