The last article introduced the story of the Clear Lake Water Company (CLWC), their construction of a dam, and the first signs of trouble with the citizens of Lakeport. With the Clear Lake Water Company firmly established in the county by the autumn of 1866, things were looking up. From the northeastern shores of Clear Lake to the outlet of Cache Creek, Lake County resounded with the industry of loggers, farmers and ranchers in the employ of the CLWC. In order to understand what changed, what created the historical swerve that would contribute to Lake County’s future troubles with water rights, we have to first look at those two fateful winters of 1866-1868.
Winter Rains and Lawsuit
Work continued at the mills on Cache Creek throughout November and December of 1866, despite a disturbing amount of rainfall. It’s not certain how much rain actually fell in Lake County that winter, but it was sufficient to cause flooding around the lake, with water reaching Main Street in Lakeport and farms abutting the lakeshore turning into swampland.
The geography of Cache Creek plays a major role in Clear Lake’s tendency to flood. Rain water drains into the creeks throughout the county, which themselves drain into Clear Lake. From there, the only escape is Cache Creek. The problem with Cache Creek is its rather slow flow rate caused by the presence of a riffle (Grigsby’s Riffle). This sand bar of sorts was created from debris deposited into the channel from Seigler Creek, which enters Cache Creek nearly at a right angle less than two miles from the mouth of the creek and lake. At the point Seigler Creek meets Cache Creek, its flow rate is much faster than that of Cache Creek. The result is that debris from flooding is pushed along Seigler until it is deposited into Cache Creek. Unfortunately, the current of Cache Creek is not sufficient to discharge the blockage and a riffle forms. This problem was identified by a USGS survey in 1901 and was certainly known locally earlier than that, but in the winter of 1866/7 the residents of Lake County appeared completely unaware of the problem.
Following the floods, citizens of Lakeport and Upper Lake banded together to have the company desist operation of the dam by having it declared a nuisance. It is not certain exactly when the suit entered the court but a report from a CLWC agent on June 12, 1867 reveals that the suit was already in the preliminary stages. Records in the Historic Courthouse Museum show that on October 9, 1867 the “People of the State of California” filed an “Indictment for Nuisance” against Orrin Simmons, John Bensley and S.J.C Sweezy. Rather than employees of the CLWC, it appears that Bensley and Sweezy were principal investors in the company itself. On October 9, a grand jury of Lake County citizens found that the state had enough evidence for the case to go to trial and so warrants were issued for the three defendants and bail set at $1,000 apiece. There is no further record of the case until the first of January, 1868.
Meanwhile, the winter of 1867 and 1868 was even harsher than the previous one. In January of 1868 John Bensley related to Simmons a report from one of their agents in Lake County. This man told a tale of biblical proportions, with flooding nearly carrying horses away and utterly destroying houses. As you can imagine, this only fueled the anti-CLWC fire in the county. When the court first opened in January of 1868, instead of beginning the court case as the grand jury had ordered in October of 1867, the judge recused himself from the case, citing a conflict of interest and ruled that the case had to be tried in nearby Mendocino County. This is where the record becomes fuzzy, and we aren’t certain what transpired in the Mendocino court. However, later secondary sources tell us that the case was soon brought back to Lake County.
In fact, by April of 1868 the indictment for nuisance was again leveled at Orrin Simmons, John Bensley and S.J.C. Sweezy and a grand jury called up. This Lake County grand jury ruled that the case should be tried in court—which is exactly what the grand jury had decided back in October of 1867. Just as before, a bench warrant was issued and this time bail was only set at $800 apiece. Also just as before, the judge recused himself from the case citing conflict of interest and ordered the case to be tried in Mendocino—again. And, like the first time, it’s not certain what transpired in Mendocino, but the case once more found itself in a Lake County courtroom in July of 1868.
Get all of that?
By this point at least two separate Lake County grand juries (since we don’t know for sure what happened the two times in Mendocino) had ruled that the case needed to be heard in court. And each time the CLWC was able to prove that there was a conflict of interest. Although this was roundly condemned by later sources as evidence of the evil conniving of the CLWC to pervert justice, the fact remains that most people in Lake County at that time had had some experience with the CLWC—whether as employees, investors or rivals. It’s not surprising that the judge was either directly or indirectly associated with the company, and so could not be expected to rule impartially.
By July 6, 1868 both parties were hoping for a conclusion to this fiasco. The people charging the company were impatient at the slow pace of lady justice and the three men of the CLWC were eager to conclude this nasty business and move on. Just as before, however, the judge delayed the process by recusing himself and ordering the case to be moved. Rather than sending it back to Mendocino, however, the case was moved to the 7th District court—also located in Lake County.
Decisions made in this last courtroom would set into motion the final act of this drama. Its conclusion would find Lake County forever changed … to be continued.
Tony Pierucci is curator of Lake County museums
