HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - North Fork Water Company - 02/06/1975 (Santa Ana - Mill Creek Cooperative Water Project Agreement)NORTH FORK WATER COMPANY
Law Offices of Sherwood Pebruar? 6, 1975
an~ Denslow Green
o..box 1019
atlr. 93637
lef~ Co~ceptu.~l P13n (bnm~a Aha ]liver - uill Creek
Project ~greement)
o.~ Fork Water Cor~p~ny met on Friday,
Jnnuary 31, 1975, with [[~rotd G. Eickert and Joseph Rowe discussing
the Conceptual Plan and the ~ Aha River - [~ill Creek Cooperative
Wat~r Project A(freement daheJ Dece~oer 6, 1974 before th~ other
Directors of the Company, As a result of the meeting the Roard
authorize/ you to review the ~on~e~ _ual Plan and Yaake your
recorT%endatzons to ~ reviewed bv the liorth Fork ~oar,a in your
Durin~3 the course of the Board meeting the general points and
zal~ed in the meeting with you an~ hhe East San Lernardino
CounEv. a~er ~istrict Water Co~mmittee on January 21 1975, were
presented and discussed. The Olrectors of North Fork felt that these
general , o~n~ were atto of great impotence to North Fork.
However, there are a nu~er of other items 'which pertain more directly,
or p~rticularly, to North Fork and the~e are set forth below:
1. The Agreement as drafted should ba clear in its not involving
t1~ree (3) cfs ~o East Highlands Company (East Highlands Orange
C~. _~.~ny)'~ ~= as any part of exchange water. It was felt by th~
r~ ~' e (Director of North Fork) of tb~ Orange Company (Saratoga
Devetoument Company) that there was not enough protection of the 3 cfs
flo?~:
2. Th~ Agreement on Exhibit "B", p~ge 2 of 2 calls for an
nterim delivery of water to the North Fork canal at an approximate
l~vel of 1700 ~eet. The minimum accegtable delive~ points on an
interim b~si~ i~ at an elevation of lS00 ~eet an~ the Agreement ~houl~
be clear to enable North Fork to ask for and receive a delivery of
water to the Nor~ Fork box at any tim~ by proper notice. There is
one stockholder turnout at elevation 1760 feet, however, ~e East
Highl~d Company has groves at an elevation i~e~iately below the
level of the Nor~ Fork box (1940 ~). Representatives of ~e Orange
Company indicate~ ~at they ~y want to change irrigation procedure
and take water delivery ~rom the North Fork canal at ~ese upper
1 -
N? 57
NORTH FORK WATER COMP~a~Y
Law offices of Sherwood February 6, 1975
and Denslow Green
elevations;
3. There is no reference to the so catie~l proposed North
Fork Reservoir in the Agreement, howeYer, it does sh~ on the Design
Criteria Report, Phase Iii of the Cooperative ~ater Project. See
plats D~R-E through ~-13 (Note: DesiQn Criteria Report to be
forwarde~! to you).
The Aqree~ent should s~ecify~ that Nor~ Fork l~ater Company Is
e-' storage capacity in the proposed
flow of 690 miner's inches
for a ~erzo~t o~ at lee.~st ~%] hours. (~..O~,:~m~,z. ~h~ Dromosed
capacity of 69 acre feet. A ~!OW of 600
n~ one day is e~ulvalenk to 24 acre f~t, or 48 hours. ~en
co .,~ .... z~. = ..... North Fork c .... ~ capzczty of 1500 ~nches, which
inclu~e~ !~rth Fork as well as Be~r valle? flo~.~s; the demand then
t Der d~y, or 1~0 acre ~e..t for 4B hours.
4. ~]~-~ u-~h ~he A~reemen~ calls for future d~llverv of t~port
wa.zer to the ?~orth Fork bo:< there is not enough guarantee to satisfy
o~-1%'ork to a,.~,l~ that t~- required booster
nng. ni72elinc e>:tenszon =_ro~ 2Ior%h Fork Reservomr to the North
ox will be built upon the request of Nor~t Fork water Co~lpany. This
feature should be included in tn~ Agreement, either by calling for
ne faczlztle= to be built as part of Phase iii, or so,ne other fo~
of guarantee acceptable to you.
lUna - that there is not enough in ~e Agreement to
the right to revert to its no~al delivery
gu3rantee i~or th
me-cao.z due to interruptions in service or because of poor quality
of the Green ''~ ~6. %'ne ,,~a=~er ,,a=er Charge Fo~ula was discussed
anzl there was a general accemtance of ~%is basis of cha~ge by the
Directors. Le understand that you are rewriting Section i6 of ~he
Agreement to set out the fo~uta.
7. The Board I,Iembers felt that there should be more tn regards
to the protection of ~Jorth Fork's water rights written into the
Agreement.
8. The matter of water quality was discussed in detail and
was the consensus that there should be more built into the Agreement
es it pertains to a guarantee a water quality acceptable to I~orth
Fork Water Company. Water quality should include the presence of
foreign matter or algae in the water as well as constituents that
may affect irrigation r~ethod or cause ha~ to crops or trees.
NORTIt FORK WA~£ER CO.~Ip~n2~y
La~q Offices of Sherwood February 6, 1975
and Denslo'w Green
9. The n~tter of interruption of service was also of concern
to North Fork and there should be more specific ter-~s in the
Agreeme~nt as to North Fork's right to take ~,~ater from any available
source to replace -the interrupted service. (CO~U~%E~T: It is under-
sto~ that there is a time interval of approxi~tely four ~,ours for
water to travel from the North Fork Box to North Fork's last delivery
point. Ti~3.~ involved in the delivery of water to replace the
interrupted service is most important and certainly the canal should
not b~ ?er~itted to go dry for its entire reach).
5~he i'he~'~s above listed are those which have been discussed
with the ~'~.<,:r~. -] o~c' Directors and they concur in these ideas, however,
no doubt you have r~nI, ~nore points which you may wish to include in
the ~<{rca?,en%. Also w[~en you have for~ulated your co~m]ents for the
the Agr .... ent as it pertains ho North Fork we would
aooreci~te, your. :~eetin~ with th~ ,~.,.~,,~--~ to ~o over th~ various iter~
in dekail. ~[in.ily let u~3 kno~ when such a meeting is agreeable to
yo~ ant we will set our inaeting ti~e and date accordingly.
c,~,ar,., Ii. ~endricks
Secretary
jh
C.c. to: All Directors
N? 58