alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §606. State and local permits

The provision of credit assistance under the TIFIA program with respect to a project shall not—

(1) relieve any recipient of the assistance of any obligation to obtain any required State or local permit or approval with respect to the project;

(2) limit the right of any unit of State or local government to approve or regulate any rate of return on private equity invested in the project; or

(3) otherwise supersede any State or local law (including any regulation) applicable to the construction or operation of the project.

(Added Pub. L. 105–178, title I, §1503(a), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 249, §186; renumbered §606 and amended Pub. L. 109–59, title I, §1602(b)(5), (d), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1247; Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title II, §2002, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 620; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title II, §2001(e), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1444.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–94 substituted "the TIFIA program" for "this chapter" in introductory provisions.

2012—Pub. L. 112–141 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The provision of financial assistance under this chapter with respect to a project shall not—

"(1) relieve any recipient of the assistance of any obligation to obtain any required State or local permit or approval with respect to the project;

"(2) limit the right of any unit of State or local government to approve or regulate any rate of return on private equity invested in the project; or

"(3) otherwise supersede any State or local law (including any regulation) applicable to the construction or operation of the project."

2005—Pub. L. 109–59, §1602(d), renumbered section 186 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 109–59, §1602(b)(5), substituted "this chapter" for "this subchapter" in introductory provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–94 effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as a note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
Second Department,

April, 1914.

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leo Shenfield, Relator, *v.*Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Certiorari*— *dismissal of policeman—New York city.*

Certiorari to review a determination of the police commissioner of the city of New York.

Per Curiam:

The relator, a patrolman in the police department of the city of New York, was dismissed the uniformed force. The charge was “neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and violation of the rules.” There were three written specifications of these charges. After a hearing the police commissioner determined that the relator was not guilty of the second and third specifications, but that he was guilty of the first, which reads: “ Said Patrolman Leo Shenfield, Shield No. 1249, having been informed that the carcass of a hog, the property of Richard Webber, 120th street and Third avenue, had been lost or stolen from a wagon on the morning of September 6th, 1912, on Central Park West, somewhere between 42d street and North River and 120th street and Third avenue, and that the samo was in the possession of one Herman Peters, No, 951 *858Columbus avenue, failed to take proper police action in the matter.” The commissioner determined also that the relator was guilty of the charge except as to the words “ conduct unbecoming an officer,” which doubtless means he made a finding of neglect of duty and violation of the rules. No rule, of a violation of which there is any evidence, is returned in the record. The charge of neglect of duty remains as the sole basis of the order of dismissal. Of what constituted the neglect of duty we have not been advised, and we cannot conceive of any legal duty that the relator neglected to perform. The determination should be annulled, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the relator reinstated. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred. Determination annulled, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and relator reinstated.
logo 3
                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                        FAX
      (303) 623-4258PETROLEUM
      CONSULTANTS
 621
      SEVENTEENTH STREET
                    SUITE
      1550
                    DENVER,
      COLORADO 80293
                    TELEPH0NE
      (303) 623-9147
 
 
 
 Exhibit
No. 23.1
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
 As
independent petroleum and natural gas consultants, we hereby consent to the
reference of our name in the Report on Form 10 for the years ending December 31,
2007 and December 31, 2006 of PDC 2005B (the "Partnership"). We have no interest
of a substantial or material nature in the Partnership, or in any affiliate. We
have not been employed on a contingent basis, and we are not connected with the
Partnership, or any affiliate as a promoter, underwriter, voting trustee,
director, officer, employee or affiliate.
 
 
 /s/
      RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L PRYDER
      SCOTT COMPANY, L P
 
 
 
 Denver,
Colorado
 November
14, 2008
 
 
 
 1100 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3800
                  HOUSTON,
      TEXAS 77002-5218
                  TEL
      (713) 651-9191
                  FAX
      (713) 651-08491100,
      530-8TH STREET, S.W.
                  CALGARY,
      ALBERTA T2P 2W2
                  TEL
      (403) 262-2799
                  FAX
      (403) 262-2790
#### Matilda Reinert, Appellant, v. Johanna Schmidt, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §143. Repealed. Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1076, §1(24), 68 Stat. 968

Section, act Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 210, §27, 36 Stat. 1077, required Secretary of the Interior to submit an annual report to Speaker of House of Representatives of fiscal affairs of all Indian tribes for whose benefit expenditures from either public or tribal funds were made by any officer, clerk, or employee in Department of the Interior.
Page 1 of 2 Section 333 Exemption Request – Flight Operations Manual (FOM), John Walrond, Aug 10, 2015

Flight Operations Manual (FOM)

DJI Inspire 1

Supplemental to Section 333 Exemption Request | John Walrond | Aug 10, 2015

48-72 HOURS BEFORE ASSIGNMENT

Assignment location proximity to airports CHECKED

Notify FAA/FSDO of assignment details AS REQUIRED

Personnel & Property Permissions OBTAINED

Aircraft Software Updates INSTALLED

BEGINNING OF DAY

Crewmembers BRIEFED ON ACTIVITY

Necessary Electronic Maps DOWNLOADED

Batteries CHARGED

Memory Cards CLEARED

TARGET ENVIRONMENT

Weather VISIBILITY,WINDS & LIGHTING

Subject Perimeter SECURED

Target Subject SURVEYED

Aircraft Flight Path. WALKED

Overhead Obstructions CLEARED

RTH Path & Altitude CHECKED

CONTROLLER CONFIGURATION

Controller Battery Level CHECKED

Flight Mode Switch P-GPS MODE

iOS Device ATTACHED,CABLE SECURED

AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION

Aircraft ONTOLAUNCH POINT

Flight Battery INSTALLED

Propellers & Locks INSTALLED

Controller POWER ON

Flight Battery POWER ON

Transformation Switch (Landing Gear) TOGGLE4x– GEAR LOWERS

Flight Battery POWER OFF

Controller POWER OFF

Camera & Gimbal INSPECTED

SD Memory Card INSTALLED IN CAMERA

Gimbal Cap & Lens Cap REMOVED

Aircraft Gimbal Cap REMOVED

Gimbal SECURED TO AIRCRAFT

Preflight Visual Safety Inspection AIRCRAFT AND ALL COMPONENTS
Page 2 of 2 Section 333 Exemption Request – Flight Operations Manual (FOM), John Walrond, Aug 10, 2015

PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT

Controller POWERED ON

Flight Battery POWERED ON

Aircraft Systems Self-Test .COMPLETED

iOS Device & DJI Pilot App ON – “CAMERA” SELECTED

Controller-Aircraft Electronic Linkage VERIFIED

Aircraft Compass CALIBRATE IN DJI VISION APP

“Safe to Fly” VERIFY IN DJI VISION APP

Satellite Count 6+

Power Settings – Flight Battery & Control VERIFIED

LAUNCH & FLIGHT TEST

Launch Area CLEAR

Crewmembers READY

Camera RECORDING AS REQUIRED

Flight Timer STARTED

Motors. START USING CSC

Aircraft Launch THROTTLE INCREASED

Altitude 3 METERS

Landing Gear RETRACTED

Flight Tests PERFORMED

FLIGHT

Satellites & Battery States MONITORED

Return to Home 30 MINUTES OR 25% FLIGHT BATTERY POWER

LANDING

Landing Area CLEAR

Landing Gear AUTO OR MANUAL EXTENSION

Throttle REDUCED TO TOUCHDOWN

Motors SHUT DOWN

AFTER LANDING

Camera VERIFY NOT RECORDING

DJI Vision App OFF

Flight Battery OFF

Controller OFF

Landing Area SECURED

SECURE AIRCRAFT

Postflight Visual Safety Inspection AIRCRAFT AND ALL COMPONENTS

Gimbal Cap & Lens Cap ATTACHED

Gimbal REMOVED FROM AIRCRAFT

Aircraft Gimbal Cap ATTACHED

SD Memory Card REMOVED

Propellers & Locks REMOVED

Flight Battery REMOVED
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

 140

 156

 158

 153

 140

 143

 137

 136

 134

 128

 138

 138

 127

 152

 138

 126

 131

 133

 139

 146

 137

 135

 133

 149

 134

 137

 136

 138

 130

 138

 144

 131

 129

 128

 126

 121

 122

 121

 119

 118

 116

 116

 115

 115

 117

 119

 119

 115

 120

 118

 120

 120

 122

 122

 120

 125

 121

 120

 118

 118

 122

 128

 134

 135

 135

 132

 127

 127

 128

 125

 123

 122

 122

 121

 118

 126

 125

 122

 121

 125

 126

 126

 126

 127

 126

 126

 128

 127

 126

 126

 124

 127

 131

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 3, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### § 685.330 How are services delivered to eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers?

To ensure that all services are focused on the customer's needs, services are provided through a case-management approach emphasizing customer choice and may include: Appropriate career services and training; related assistance, which includes emergency assistance; and supportive services, which includes allowance payments. The basic services and delivery of case-management activities are further described in §§ 685.340 through 685.390.
### SUBCHAPTER III—REPORTS
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Detail

# Conservation Compliance: How Farmer Incentives Are Changing in the Crop Insurance Era

Economic Research Report No. (ERR-234) 63 pp, July 2017

by Roger  Claassen, Maria  Bowman, Vince  Breneman, Tara  Wade, Ryan  Williams, Jacob  Fooks, LeRoy  Hansen, Rich   Iovanna , and Chuck  Loesch

Conservation Compliance ties eligibility of Federal farm program benefits to soil and wetland conservation.  Under the 2014 Farm Act, Compliance incentives are similar to what would have occurred under an extension of the 2008 Act.  Incentives would be lower on many farms if crop insurance premium subsidies were not contingent on meeting Compliance requirements.
See related Webinar: Conservation Compliance: How Farmer Incentives are Changing in the Crop Insurance Era, Tues., Sept. 12, 1 PM EDT.

See related *Amber Waves* article Conservation Compliance in the Crop Insurance Era.

**Keywords:** Conservation Compliance, wetlands, soil erosion, highly erodible land, crop insurance, commodity programs, Highly Erodible Land Conservation, Wetland Conservation, premium subsidies

**In this publication...**

-  Entire Report 
-  Report summary 
-  Online Appendices D and E 
-  Download Zip file for ERR-234 

-  Farm Practices & Management 
-  Crop & Livestock Practices 
-  Natural Resources & Environment 
-  Conservation Programs 
-  Environmental Quality 

**Last updated:** Thursday, July 27, 2017

**For more information contact:**Roger  Claassen, Maria  Bowman, Vince  Breneman, Tara  Wade, Ryan  Williams, Jacob  Fooks, LeRoy  Hansen, Rich   Iovanna , and Chuck  Loesch
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

DAY ELEV

 839.48

 839.25

 839.00

 839.00

 838.95

 838.90

 838.87

 838.81

 838.73

 838.63

 838.60

 838.72

 838.85

 838.98

 839.10

 839.21

 839.21

 839.40

 839.48

 839.55

 839.61

 839.66

 839.71

 839.74

 839.80

 839.87

 839.93

 839.98

 840.05

 840.08

 48.43

 48.14

 47.82

 47.82

 47.76

 47.70

 47.66

 47.59

 47.49

 47.36

 47.32

 47.47

 47.64

 47.80

 47.95

 48.09

 48.09

 48.33

 48.43

 48.52

 48.60

 48.66

 48.73

 48.76

 48.84

 48.93

 49.01

 49.07

 49.16

 49.20

STORAGE

-0.24

-0.29

-0.32

+0.00

-0.06

-0.06

-0.04

-0.08

-0.10

-0.13

-0.04

+0.15

+0.16

+0.16

+0.15

+0.14

+0.00

+0.24

+0.10

+0.09

+0.08

+0.06

+0.06

+0.04

+0.08

+0.09

+0.08

+0.06

+0.09

+0.04

CHANGE

198

177

164

175

145

144

154

134

123

109

120

153

124

124

116

112

43

164

89

85

79

70

72

62

82

87

82

125

91

66

INFLOW

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 10

 10

 10

 15

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 15

 15

 15

 15

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 293

 293

 292

 144

 144

 144

 144

 144

 144

 144

 110

 48

 16

 16

 15

 15

 15

 10

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 10

 10

 10

 10

 64

 15

 15

OUTLET

 12

 16

 17

 16

 18

 16

 14

 13

 14

 14

 14

 14

 11

 11

 14

 16

 18

 17

 13

 15

 16

 13

 15

 17

 19

 17

 19

 19

 21

 21

C.F.S.

 .30

 .39

 .43

 .41

 .45

 .41

 .34

 .33

 .35

 .35

 .34

 .34

 .27

 .27

 .35

 .39

 .44

 .43

 .33

 .38

 .39

 .33

 .37

 .42

 .46

 .42

 .48

 .48

 .52

 .52

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2003 RUN DATE: 03/11/2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +.51 3,469 2,340 395 470 11.69 .00

ACRE-FEET +510 6,881 4,641 783 932

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 783

OUTLET

TOTAL

 4,641

 5,424

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2002 23.48

 48.68

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### Karnail SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76416.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Patrick O. Cantor, Esq., Buttar & Cantor, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*194Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Karnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. *See Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found Petitioner’s demeanor troubling throughout the proceedings and went on to note several inconsistencies within Petitioner’s testimony. Most notably, the IJ was concerned that Petitioner’s testimony was unspecific and contradictory regarding the reason for his arrest, his flight from India to Nepal and his membership in a political party.

The “special deference” owed to the IJ’s demeanor finding, taken together with the inconsistencies and lack of specificity in the record, causes us to conclude that no reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, we uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See Singh-Kaur,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-1153 (9th Cir.1999); *Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS,*36 F.3d 801, 818-819 (9th Cir.1994). In the absence of credible testimony Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
94°32' 94°31' 94°30' 94°29' 94°28' 

39°00' 

39°01' 

39°02' 

39°03' 

39°04' 

39°05' 

39°06' 

39°07' 

39°08' 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2006–5089

Blue Parkway gage, stage elevation of 756 feet—PLATE 4.4

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

By

Brian P. Kelly and Paul H. Rydlund, Jr.

2006

* #

* #

* #

* #

* #

A B C D E F 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Base from Jackson County Management Information Systems digital data, 1:833, 2003 

 and City of Kansas City, Missouri, digital data, 1:833, 2004

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

U.S. Geological Survey 

stage gage at 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at Blue Parkway 

National Weather Service

flood-forecast location 

at Highway 40

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow 

gage at Stadium Drive 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at 63rd Street 

EXPLANATION

WATER DEPTH, IN FEET, AT STAGE ELEVATION 

 OF 756 FEET AT BLUE PARKWAY GAGE 

 >, greater than

 0 to 1

 >1 to 2

 >2 to 5

 >5 to 10

 >10

LAND SURFACE BELOW RIVER STAGE

 (levee protected or unconnected to river)

STUDY AREA

GAGE OR FLOOD-FORECAST LOCATION

 (ALERT, Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time)

# *

BLUE RIVER FLOOD INUNDATION

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

FORECAST LOCATION STAGE STAGE ELEVATION 

12TH STREET 27.3 741.7

HIGHWAY 40 23.3 744.9

STADIUM DRIVE 28.1 746.4

BLUE PARKWAY 33.5 756.0 

63RD STREET 48.0 769.8 

I - 435 

I-435 

Hawthorne Road 

 Trafficway 

Clary Boulevard 

I-70 

23rd Street 

U S Highway 40 

17th Street 

Road I - 435 

R

a

yto

wn

Coal Mine Road

Van Brunt 

Boulevard

Avenue 

Hard

esty

63rd Steet Brighton

L

e

wis

R

oad

67th

Street

Manchester

Gregory Boulevard

Drive Crest

A

venue
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Animal & Natural Resources 
-  Environmental Microbial and Food Safety Laboratory 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search  UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**IMPROVING PRODUCE SAFETY BY STABALIZING CHLORINE IN WASHING SOLUTIONS WITH HIGH ORGANIC LOADS
**Location: Environmental Microbial and Food Safety Laboratory**
												Project Number: 1265-32420-005-09Project Type:																				Trust

Start Date: Oct 01, 2009End Date: Sep 30, 2011

**Objective:**1.	Evaluate the effect of F86-128 on the stability of hypochlorous acid in the presence of high organic matter load.2.	Determine the efficacy of F86-128 for pathogen reduction.3.	Evaluate the effect of F86-128 on product quality and shelf life, and its residual level on finished products.
**Approach:**This project takes a system-based and trans-disciplinary approach to address food safety issues of fresh-cut produce. The project involves research in the fields of microbiology, post-harvest technology, and analytic chemistry.
    Project TeamLUO, YAGUANG  - *SUNNY*SHELTON, DANIEL MILLNER, PATRICIA  
Project Annual Reports FY 2011 FY 2010 
Related National Programs Food Safety, (animal and plant products)(108)  							Last Modified: 01/10/2012 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
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

DAY ELEV

 130.48

 130.14

 130.49

 130.62

 130.64

 130.35

 130.18

 130.62

 130.71

 130.34

 130.16

 130.43

 130.53

 130.40

 130.45

 130.42

 130.31

 130.52

 130.57

 130.57

 130.57

 130.58

 130.66

 130.74

 130.84

 130.76

 130.58

 130.55

 130.47

 130.37

 631

 595

 632

 646

 649

 618

 599

 646

 657

 616

 597

 626

 636

 623

 628

 625

 613

 635

 641

 641

 641

 642

 651

 660

 671

 663

 642

 639

 630

 620

STORAGE

+34

-36

+37

+14

+3

-31

-19

+47

+11

-41

-19

+29

+10

-13

+5

-3

-12

+22

+6

+0

+0

+1

+9

+9

+11

-8

-21

-3

-9

-10

CHANGE

43

84

187

160

133

114

113

125

76

44

66

93

80

66

69

67

69

93

91

90

90

91

91

91

92

81

63

69

66

66

INFLOW

 26

 88

 138

 112

 100

 100

 100

 75

 50

 50

 50

 48

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

PUTAH

 0

 14

 30

 41

 30

 30

 23

 26

 20

 15

 26

 30

 30

 28

 21

 24

 30

 37

 43

 45

 45

 45

 41

 40

 40

 40

 29

 26

 26

 26

PUTAH

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .05

 .05

 .05

 .08

 .16

 .07

 .09

 .11

 .04

 .02

 .01

 .07

 .05

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .10

 .05

 .07

 .05

 .13

 .12

 .05

 .14

 .15

 .09

 .04

 .05

 .04

 .01

INCHES

 .00

 .16

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 1.16

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .06

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NOVEMBER 2021 RUN DATE: 12/02/2021

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +23 2,663 901 1,747 3 1.98 1.42

ACRE-FEET +23 5,282 1,787 3,465 6

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 3,465

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 1,787

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.42

JULY 1, 2021 9.38

 597

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK

OCT 1, 2021 TO DATE = 9.35
#### Elaine Van Slyke, Appellant, v. Robert Fivey, Respondent. Robert Van Slyke, Appellant, v. Robert Fivey, Respondent.

Hfil, P. J„, BHss, Heffernan and Sehenek, Jj., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that on her own testimony plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.