HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - North Fork Water Company - 06/20/1975 (Cooperative Water Project Agreement)SHERWOOD <~ DENSLOW (~REEN
June 20th, 1975
NORTH FORK WATER COMPANY
c/o Howard Hendricks, Secretary
P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino, CA. 92413
Re: Cooperative ~Tater Project Agreement
Gentlemen:
You have asked my reply to Mr. Hiltgen's co~ents
made to the Board of Directors relative to the Cooperative
Water Project Agreement, particularly in reference to items
4 and 5 of my letter of April 21, 1975 to the Sub-Cor~mittee.
As you will recall, item 4 of my letter referred to the
fact that the contract must reflect recognition by all parties
of North Fork Water Company's entitlement. Item 5 required
the taking and/or payment for North Fork's total entitlement
right at the same rate charged for supplemental water to other
parties to the agreement.
In discussing the presentation made by Mr. Hiltgen with
Mr. Rowe and Mr. Rickert, I was informed that Mr. Hiltgen
stated that it was the position of the committee that they
reject totally both the requirements of paragraph 4 and para-
graph 5, and stated that they were not subject to further
negotiations.
The basic concept of the Cooperative Water Project Agree-
ment is to provide benefit to those parties who are signatory
thereto by the utilization of the water supplies of the Santa
Ana River, v£~ich can be obtained at a higher elevation, in
exchange for ~aters of the State project, ~ich would be
delivered at a lower elevation. The plan has merit if it pro-
vides benefit for all of those who are parties thereto.
As I h~ve previously indicated to the Board, it is my
opinion that unless the agreement specifies the quantities of
flow that North Fork is entitled to receive, and provides a
means of payment therefor, that the plan would not provide a
benefit to the North Fork Water Company. In essence, what
the committee is suggesting is that we provide our water supply
NORTH FORK WATER COMPANY
June 20th, 1975 Page -2-
to the overall benefit of Valley District, without receiving
any compensation therefor, or specific benefit to North Fork
Water Company.
It has been, and is, my position that the water rights
that we hold in the Santa Ana River being of better quality
than State water, and being available at higher elevations
than State water, have equal or greater value than the cost
of State water. ~.~ile the Sub-Committee recognizes that it
costs somewhere between $85 and $100 an acre foot for State
water within Valley District, and further recognizes that
the water has economic value at this cost, they are unwilling
to pay anything for North Fork§ water supply. So long as they
take this position, I think it unwise for North Fork to enter
into the Cooperative Water Project Agreement.
In discussing this matter with Mr. Rowe and Mr. Rickert,
they suggested that I draft some language to revise the exist-
ing contract relative to the provisions protecting existing
water rights as outlined in paragraph 7 of my April 21st letter.
If, however, the Sub-Committee is unwilling to negotiate items
4 and 5 discussed above, I don't think North Fork's money should
be spent on revision of a contract they are not going to exe-
cute. Unless, therefore, North Fork's Board decides to go ahead
with the contract without payment for their water supply, and
without definition of their rights, I will not do further work
for North Fork on the other provisions of the agreement.
Yours very truly,
SHERWOOD & DENSLO~ GREEN
Denslow Green
DG:j
66