February 12, 2003

Via First-Class Mail and E-Mail

Michael J. Ryan

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Shasta Area Manager

16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard

Shasta Lake, CA 96019-8400

Re: GCID’s Draft of Renewal Contract for Discussion at the

February 18, 2003 GCID/USBR Negotiating Session

Dear Mr. Ryan:

In preparation for the February 18, 2003 individual district-level negotiating session 

between Reclamation and GCID, I am enclosing a February 10, 2003 draft renewal Settlement 

Contract for GCID. As you will note, this draft incorporates the provisions tentatively agreed 

to by GCID and Reclamation during our previous large group negotiating sessions between 

Reclamation the Settlement Contractors. The provisions that have been tentatively agreed to 

are not shaded. In this regard, our further negotiations and discussions should primarily focus 

on the shaded provisions. Following is a discussion of the shaded provisions, and an 

explanation of the modifications proposed by GCID:

1. Recital 2 and Article 1: Definitions have been added, and some related 

definitions and provisions have been slightly modified, in order to comport with GCID’s 

existing Settlement Contract. These changes are consistent with Articles 1(d), (e), (j) and (k) 

of GCID’s existing Settlement Contract.

2. Article 3: The changes (and identical changes throughout the draft contract) 

appropriately reference GCID’s “Source of Supply,” as defined in GCID’s existing Settlement 

Contract, rather than referencing the Sacramento River only. 

3. Article 4: The modifications are consistent with Article 4 of GCID’s existing 

Settlement Contract.

4. New Article 9(c): A redraft of the so-called water quality provision is set forth 

in Article 9(c). This revised provision is consistent with the proposal made on behalf of other 

Settlement Contractors in my letter to you of even date on that topic. The remaining sub-
Michael J. Ryan

February 12, 2003

Page 2

articles have been renumbered accordingly. I will be prepared to further discus this matter 

during the general negotiating session prior to the GCID/USBR session.

5. Article 10(a): The modifications are consistent with Article 10(a) of GCID’s 

existing Settlement Contract.

6. Article 20(b): The modifications are consistent with Article 13(b) of GCID’s 

existing Settlement Contract.

7. Article 30(c): The addition is consistent with Article 25(c) of GCID’s existing 

Settlement Contract.

Finally, there may be other district-specific issues and provisions that require further 

discussion and negotiation. I assume that we will identify any such remaining issues during 

the February 18, 2003 negotiating session. I would also like to discuss timing issues 

associated with completion of the renewal process, including NEPA/CEQA compliance and 

Endangered Species Act issues.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 

need additional information regarding these matters.

Very truly yours,

Stuart L. Somach

General Counsel

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

SLS:sb

Encl.

cc: O.L. “Van” Tenney David J. Guy

Kevin M. O’Brien Marc E. Van Camp

J. Mark Atlas Dick Stevenson

Paul Bartkiewicz John Davis

William H. Baber, III Don Bultema

John Kenny Gary Nuss

William F. Menke Andrew M. Hitchings

Dennis Michum