HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-1296 - Legal counsel to determine water rights at Adams Avenue and Brookhurst StreetBy the C;7Y COUNCIL
GTE' REACH
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of
CITY ATTORNEY
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
Subject: City water rights
February 8, 1971
# -i <9,
Transmitted herewith for your file is the attached
opinion concerning the City's water rights in connection with
the property at Adams Avgnue and Brookhurst Street in the City
.of Huntington Beach.
752, IV- •�,-.�
TULLY H. SEYMOUR
City Attorney
THS:mh
Att.
cc: City Manager
City Clerk
TAYLOR &. SMITH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
EDWARD F. TAYLOR 505 ARROWHEAD AVENUE-SU1TE 506
JAMES A. SMITH POST OFFICE BOX 1126
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
WILLIAM J. SRUNICM
0
January 8,' 1971
TEIEaXONE
TURNER 5-683B
Mr. Tully H. Seymour
City Attorney, Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 93660
Re: City Water Rights
Dear Tully:
I have completed a�nny conferences with the engine4ring consultants for
the City of Newport Beach, James M. Montgomery, and my legal analysis
of the legal questions submitted for my consideration.
In the preparation of this opinion, I have examined the following back-
ground materials furnished by you: Report of City Water Wells No. 13
and No. 15, January 1967; Supplemental Report on Future Sources of
Water, January 1967; Test Drilling and Water Quality Investigations of
Well No. 13, all by James M. Montgomery, consulting engineers; copy of
an annexation study prepared by the Orange County Water District; a
copy of the judgment in the case of Campbell v. The Irving Company, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 28524; certain water production state-
ments filed by the City of Newport Beach with the Orange County Water
District and the State Water Resources Control Board; an appraisal of the
property at Adams and Brookhurst by Tait Appraisal Company, dated
February 25, 1969; and a preliminary title report on the property.
I am informed that the City Council has directed the City Manager and his
staff to proceed with the sale of the property owned by the city at the inter-
section of Adams and Brookhurst in Huntington Beach upon the basis of my
advice to you and Joseph T. Devlin, Public Works Director, during our
conference in Newport Beach. My recommendation that the sale would
not prejudice any water right predicated upon the city's historical
operation of Wells No. 13 and 15 on the property is confirmed by the
opinions set forth in this advisory letter.
Let me turn to the series of questions which you have submitted to me
as follows:
0
Mr. Seymour -2- January 8, 1971
1. What is the nature and extent of the City's right to
pump water from the subject property?
2. Can the City sever. its water rights from the subject
property and transfer them to another less valuable
pumping site within the Santa Ana River basin?
3. Can the City exercise its water rights without the
necessity of joining the Orange County Water District?
4. If the pity joined the Orange County Water District,
and if there were a shortage of water in the basin,
would the fact that the City of Newport Beach does
not overlay the basin affect our priority rights for
the available water?
I recognize that some of the political and economic matters raised in the
reports and documents may lie outside the scope of the narrow questions
you have submitted, but, if any relevant legal matters have not been
touched upon in my discussion, I will be glad to make such further comments
as you may request.
1. What is the nature and
from the subject property.
's
wa
There may be little practical value in claiming water rights based upon the
city's past pumpage or maintenance of facilities on the acreage so long as
your production takes place within the Orange County Water District.
The acreage in the City of Huntington Beach is owned in fee simple by the City
of Newport. For a period prior to 1953, two wells on the site; designated
No. 13 and No. 15, were operated regularly to produce water for domestic
and municipal purposes. These are reasonable, beneficial uses recognized
by the Water Code. In nearly every political subdivision in California, except
the Orange County Water District, the city would have a valid claim for a
paramount overlying right to all waters so produced and applied upon the
property, (Pasadena y. Alhambra, '33 C. 2d 908, 925; Alpaugh Irr. Dist.
v. County of Kern, 113 C. A. 2d 286, 292) and possibly a firm appropriative-
prescriptive interest in supplies produced and imported away from tle well
site for use through the municipal system. (Pasadena v. Alhambra. supra;
San Bernardino v_ Riverside, 186 C. 7, 22 -23; 198 P. 784; Katz v. Walkinshaw.
141 C. 116; 70 P. 663)
Mr. Seymour -3- January 8, 1971
Because of certain provisions in the Orange County Water District Act
(Chapter 40, Water Code Appendix) these claims may be of negligible value
for producing ground water within the district. The application of legislative
controls imposed upon extraction and use of water under the Orange County
Water District Act have made water rights, as defined in California statutes
and case decisions, unnecessary for the pumping of water in the district..
The Orange County Water District Act prohibits production of water from
a facility which has not'been registered with the Orange County Water
District, or does not have a water measuring device, acts which are made
criminal offenses subject to fine and imprisonment (Section No. 24 and 40 -35)
or injunctive action. (Section 40 -32).
The Act, as applied within the district, lays down the conditions under which
waters may be taken from the underground reservoir in the district. The
statutory privilege of producing water; needed for reasonable, beneficial
use is subject to an assessment upon every acre foot so removed, popularly
called a "gross pump tax" (Sections 40 -36 through 40 -31. 5) or "basin
equity assessments' (40 -31. 5). The pump tax, presently about $13. 00 per
acre foot, has the effect of eliminating the advantage to a producer.who
has a long history of water production and use (the basic elements of legal
,entitlements to water under California law. The first -time producer may
take as much water as one with a long- established record of pumpage, upon
compliance with the district act, and payment of the pump tax. Since the
Newport Beach well -field under consideration is located in Orange County
Water District, even if you were to start producing water in quantity once
again, from Wells Nos. 13 and 15, the pump tax would be imposed upon all
amounts taken. The Orange County Water District Act would preclude you
from claiming that any of your production is. exempt from the pump tax,
even though you might otherwise own a water right under California law.
The city may possibly, contend that its past record of pumpage from Wells
13 and 15 has established a right that may be exercised by pumpage from
other wells within the Orange County basin. If the transferred right could
be exercised from facilities outside the boundaries of the Orange County
Water District, that agency's pump tax would not apply. If such sites exist,
and the production of water of adequate quality and quantity from them were
feasible, It would be advisable to continue to produce in the same quantities
as in the past from a new site for the purpose of preserving the pre- existing
right.
Mr'. Seymour 44-
t
January 8, 1971
I have conferred with your consulting engineering firm, James M. Montgomery,
and asked it specifically to determine whether such sites are available at
locations outside the district.
As I have poinred out, well location is important, because water rights
exercised within the district would be subject to the "pump tax ". Unfortunately,
the Montgomery investigations, which will be submitted to you shortly, will
report an absence of feasible well fields available to Newport Beach on any
site outside the Orange County Water District. I am advised that ample
ground water resources of practical value to Newport Beach have been found
within the district boundaries, but that none occur outside it. Thus it
appears that even if Newport Beach were in a position to claim water rights
under traditional legal theories in California, such rights would not be
necessary for the production of water in the district. The city, upon
compliance with the Crange County Water District Act, has the same right
to produce water as every other producer similarly situated within the
district, and provided the pump taxes are paid.
If any location from which it is feasible for the city to produce water is ever
found at a future time outside the district, it possibly may be practicable
for the city to claim rights predicated upon its historical pumpage from
Wells 13 and 15. For this reason, I have recommended that a reservation
of all water rights attached to the site be retained by the city in the event
of sale of the property. Although the probability of ever utilizing the rights
may seem remote, particularly in view of the long period of non- exercise
of the .right since 1953, the reservation may have future application. For
the purpose of keeping control of the property, the city would be able to
prevent any other person from drilling a well on the site without its
permission. I have attached a proposed reservation hereto, in draft form.
The principal reason for insisting that the engineers try to locate a site
outside the district is that the city has regularly and wisely filed its annual
statement with the State of California for many years to preserve its historical
groundwater rights from the Santa Ana Basin.
Under the California Water Code, the legislature allows a producer which
has ceased to extract groundwater, and taken alternate supplies from a
nontributary source, to avoid losing or impairing any water righrs. This
is a statutory right, founded upon the salutary public policy of encouraging
producers to seek supplemental water as an alternative to overpumping
local resources for the purpose of protecting claims of right. The applicable
sections provide,as_ follows: ,
0
0
January 8, 1971
"1005. 1. Cessation of or reduction in the extraction of ground
water by the owner of a right to extract, as the result of the use
of an alternate supply of water from a nontributary source, shall
be and is deemed equivalenr to, and for purposes of establishing
and maintaining any right to extract the ground water shall be
construed to constitute, a reasonable beneficial use of the ground
water to the extent and in the amount that water from the alternate
source i s applied to reasonable beneficial use, not exceeding,
however, the. amount of such reduction. Any such user of water from
an alternate nontributary source who seeks the benefit of this Section
1005. 1, shall file with the Board, on or before December 31st of
each calendar year, a statement of the amount of water from said
source so applied to reasonable beneficial use pursuant to the
provisions of this section during the next preceding water year
(November 1st to October 31st), and such user cannot claim the
benefit of this section for any water year for which such statement
is not so filed. "
"Ground Water" For the purpose of this section and for Section
1005.2 means water beneath the surface of the ground, whether or
not flowing through known and definite channels.. . . "
"The term "nontributary source" as used in this section shall be
deemed to include water imported from another watershed, or
water conserved and saved in the watershed by a water conservation
plan or works without which such water of the same watershed would
have wasted, or would not have reached the underground source of
supply of the owner relying upon this section. "
"1005.2 Cessation of or reduction in the extraction of ground water,
to permit the replenishment of such ground water by the use of water
from an alternate nontributary source, is hereby declared to be a
reasonable beneficial use of the ground water to the extent and in
the amount that water from such alternate source is applied to
beneficial use, not exceeding, however, the amount of such
reduction. No lapse, reduction or loss of any right in ground water,
shall occur under such conditions. "
The city's most recent filings pursuant to these provisions have been made
annually in the total amounts received by the city from supplies of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. For example, the
statement of cessation or reduction for the water year ending October 31,
1969, sets forth the total amount of 11,470.53 acre feet. The portion of this
total amount that would have been produced from Wells No. 13 and No. 15 in
the absence of the non - tributary supplies from the Metropolitan Water District.
Mr. Seymour -6- January 8, 1971
Among the documents which you submitted for my review is the judgment
in the case of Campbell, et al. v. The Irvine Company, designated Case
No. 28524 of the Superior Court of Orange County.
The judgment fixes certain water rights of the parties, including the City
of Newport Beach, in the "common water - bearing strata and continuous body of
underground percolating waters in the Santa Ana River Basin as well as from
the surface flow of said Santa Ana River ", and it additionally determines
rights in "a surplus of water amounting to 7, 500 acre feet" in a local area
extending inland about three miles. This judgment, entered in 1933, provides that
the City of Newport Beach has the right and is entitled to pump, take, divert,
and transport 700 acre feet annually from the s.urplus underground waters
for domestic and other municipal purposes from the Santa Ana River Basin.
But the court further ordered that the city's taking of the 700 acre feet of
surplus waters in the basin "will not thereafter cause the plane or level
of the local surplus waters to be .lowered to such extent as to allow the
water of the Pacific Ocean to seep or percolate into the basin. . . and will
not thereafter in any ma nner deprive the plaintiffs, or any one of them, or
any other owners of land overlying said basin, of any waters which they have
heretofore been lawfully taking and using.
Paragraph X1I of the judgment permits the City of Newport Beach "to pump,
take and extract from said common water - bearing strata and continuous body
of underground percolating,waers an amount of water reasonably necessary
for domestic and municipal'uses within that portion of the city overlying said
Santa Ana River Basin. " Under ordinary circumstances this would be a good
and sufficient right.
As a practical matter, the ri hts obtained by the city under this judgment
are limited by three factors �1) the parties plaintiff do not include the Orange
County Water District, and would not be binding upon it; (2) the physical
conditions upon which the judgment was based in 1933 probably no longer
exist; for example, the surplus waters totaling, 500 acre feet in a zone
adjacent to the o9ean have been largely if not completely eliminated by
salt water intrusion and overdraft; (3) the right to take all waters reasonably
necessary for domestic and municipal uses within the portion of the city
overlying the Santa Ana River Basin would have no value in the absence of
sufficient supplies of potable water ground waters in basins underlying the
city.
Under general laws of this state, a producer, such as the City of Newport
Beach, may have the right to transfer certain water rights from one production
Mr. Seymour -7- January 8, 1971
facility to another within the same common supply, provided no other party
is in' red unreasonably by the change. However, as I have pointed out in
my discussion of the previous question, there is no advantage for the city to make
such transfers of rights within the confines of the Orange County Water
District, where all producers, old or new, take water under the same con-
ditions and are subject to identical charges, regardless of their legal claims
to water.
Only if the city were able to transfer a claimed right from the Brookhurst-
Adams site for production from a well field situate outside the district would
there be a sound reason for the transfer. Any plan to make such a transfer
here appears impractical because of the discouraging conclusions of the
city's consulting engineer, James M. Montgomery, whose careful investigation
of the geology and hydrology of the Santa Ana River Basin has turned up no
outside sites upon which the city could exercise rights and be exempted
from pump taxes. ,
3. Can the City exercise its water rights without the necessity of
joining the Orange County Water District?
In producing water under claim of right from sites outside the Orange County
Water District, the city would not be required to annex to the district. As
to extractions from facilities within the district, serious legal and political
problems arise.
The Orange County" Water District has consistently opposed any pumper from
transporting ground waters to points outside the district. In this opposition,
its board of directors has relied upon a subsection of Section 40 -2 of the
Orange County Water District Act as follows:
"To carry out the purposes of this Act, to commence,
maintain, intervene in, defend and compromise, in the
name of the district or otherwise, and to assume the costs
and expenses of any and all actions and proceedings now or
hereafter begun to. . protect unlawful exportation of
water from said district.
Counsel for the Orange County Water District has invoked this provision of
the Act upon several occasions as a legal basis to deny any pumper within
the district from exporting its ground water to unannexed areas. Whenever
any producer has indicated an intention to export waters, the Orange County
Water District has customarily required annexation as a pre- requisite to
its consent and used all the means within its power as the sole source of
supplemental water from Metropolitan Water District to block such
exportations. It has persuaded the Local Agencies Formation Commission
on occasion to make annexation to the Orange County Water District a con-
dition for granting of an organization petition before the commission.
In view of this consistent policy of actively preventing the taking of waters
from basins within the Orange County Water District to outside areas, I
would expect that any attempt by the City of Newport Beach to do so would
be resisted strenuously by the district.
Upon careful examination, I find no provision of the Orange County Water
District Act, which expressly prohibits exportation by pumpers which have .
complied with the Act's requirements for the payment of pumping assess-
ments. Subsection 7, referred to above, empowers the district only to sue
to prevent unlawful exportations. There is no specific prohibition in the
Act against the use of ground waters of the district at places outside its
boundaries. But it is the district's practice in advising any producer
intending to do so, to interpret rules of law developed in the California cases
and statutes as a basis of arguing that any exporr�ation is "unlawful ".
We should consider the probability of expensive and arduous litigation
to establish a right to export any water from the district without annexing
to it. Although you may prevail in such a lawsuit, I am persuaded that
the district's past policies and precedent would compel it to offer its
maximum opposition.
4.
overlie the basin affect its priority right for the available water?
No. The Orange County . Water. District Act contains no provision against
the use of water upon lands which do not overlie the portion of the Santa
Ana River Basin within its boundaries. So long as the City of Newport
Beach complied with all of the requirements of the Act, such as annexation
to the district, and payment of the pump taxes, there would be no legal
objection to the use of waters produced from ground water fields within
the district and imported to areas within Newport Beach through the
municipal distribution system.
0
Mr. 'Seymour
-9
0
January 8, 1971
Let me add a comment in response to your inquiry to me about the
value of the water rights which have been the subject of this discussion.
At present, no market has been established for any water rights which
might be claimed by the City. The marketability of an asset depends
primarily upon the existence of a buyer who is ready, willing and able
to pay a consideration for the asset being offered to him. Purchasers
of water rights in Orange County are virtually non- existent. 'As our
discussion has pointed out, a right based upon historical pumpage from
basins within the Orange County Water District is not likely to be
purchased, because all producers pay similar charges upon all water
pumped, and there is no credit allowed for claimed rights. In fact,
an adjudication to determine base rights which might be exempt from
assessment has never been undertaken in the district. As to exercising,
your rights outside the district, we have explained the unfortunate
circumstance that there are no feasible sites for external production
by the City. Moreover, there has been no adjudication which would
establish saleable rights there. The record of the City's past pumpage
as a foundation for a future right would have value to a potential buyer
only in the event that such a right would be legally necessary to produce
water, or result, in an exemption from pump taxes. There seems to
be little likelihood of such an eventuality today. In view of the remote
possibility of a future adjudication, or statutory procedure that may
give credit to existing rights, we have recommended the following course:
1. That the City of Newport Beach reserve and except all
appropriative- prescriptive rights that may have been exercised from
wells No. 13 and No. 15, and -also any overlying or riparian rights
that may be appurtenant to the property upon which the wells are located.
A form of reservation of rights is enclosed with this opinion.
2. That the City of Newport Beach continue to file with the State
Water Resources Control Board such forms as may be necessary to
maintain any water rights established by past pumpage which now has
ceased because of the importation of non- tributary supplies- from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Your staff has
been diligently and competently filing the required forms for "Cessation
or Reduction of Ground Water Extractions" and should continue to do so
in accordance with Sections 1005. 1 and 1005. 2 of the Water Code.
If you have any further questions or require additional comments, please
do not hesitate to request supplementary opinions from me.
Yours very truly,
TAYLOR &,SMITH_
t
E FT Edward F. Taylor
EFT- .dm
Enc.
PROPOSED RESERVATION AND EXCEPTION
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING from said grant of real property, all
right, .title and interest in any and all waters, either appurtenant or
non- appurtenant to said real property, and which at any time have
flowed or may in the future flow on the surface, or percolate as.ground
waters underlying said real property, including any overlying or riparian
rights to such waters, and the right to take, divert, extract or produce
i
i
such waters, whether in the exercise of overlying or riparian rights
for use on said real property, or in the exercise of any appropriative,
prescriptive, or any other non - riparian or non - overlying rights by
delivery and use at any place of use within the watershed of the Santa
Ana River and its tributaries.
1 ,
`T u
0
CITY
November 5, 3970
OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
4dward F. Taylor, Attorney at Lair
Law Offices of Taylor 4r- ,Smith
515 Arrowhead, Avenue, Suite 506
'a Office B= 1125
San =.:- :rnardino, California 92402
Reg :'dtv water rights
Dear Ed:
The City Council has directed the staff to prcceed with
the male of the property owned by the city at the corner
of Adams and Brookhurst in the City of Huntington Beach.
It is my understanding from the discussion Joe Devlin and
I had with you when you met with us at Newport Beach that
the salsa of this property would not be prejudicial -to the,
City's interest in retaining the water rights which it
holds in connection therewith. in order that we may pro-
ceed with the sale, it is recuested that you furnish us
with a written opinion setting forth your conclusions.
it is suggested that your opinion include a discussion of
tho fcllowing questions, as well as any other matters
which you consider relevant;
1. Yd:at is the nature and extent of tho City's right to
pump wate>.r from the subject aroperty?
2... Can the City sever its water rights from the subject
property and transfer them to another less valuable
pumping ,3ite within the Santa Ana River basin?
3. Can the city exercise its water rights without the
necessity of joining the Orange County ester District?
4. If the City joined the orange County Water District,
and if there were a shortage of water in the basin,
Edward F. s v3or -2- Nove c!r 5, 1970
Would the fact that the City of: Newport Beach does
"ot overlay the basin affect our priority rights for
t available water?
We would appreciate a reply at, -your earliest convenience,
as the sale of this property :,.- >.a..ccne a priority item.
Yours very truly,
TULLY H. SE: ^. =1OUR
City Attorney
TizS : nth
CC. City ManageZ
City Clerk
Public Works Director
0
JUN � 197U
June 25, 1970 By the CITY COUNCIL
CITY 4W N"%#VART BRACH
Edward F. Taylor, Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Taylor & Smith
505 Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 506
Post Office Box 1125
San Bernardino, California 92402
Re: EMPLOYMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
Dear Ed:
city Hasa
3300 Newport
(714) 673 -2110
0, - IA4(0
RECEIVED
TAYLOR & SMITH
San Bernardino, California
JUL 2 1°; )
AM Phi
111
I am pleased to report that the City Council approved my
request that your firm be retained as special legal counsel
to advise the City on its water rights.
Enclosed is some background material for your review, consisting
of the following: Report on City Water Wells No. 13 and No. 15,
January 1967; Supplemental Report on Future Sources of Water,
January 1967; Test Drilling and Water Quality Investigations of
Well No. 13, all by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers;
copy of an annexation study prepared by the Orange County
Water District; a copy of the Judgment in the case of Campbell
vs. The Irvine Co an , Orange County Superior Court Case
o. certain water production statements filed by the
City of Newport Beach with the Orange County Water District and
the State Water Resources Control Board; an appraisal of the
property at Adams and Brookhurst by Tait Appraisal Company,
dated February 25, 1969; and a preliminary title report on the
Adams and Brookhurst property.
The problem we need your help on is as follows: The property
owned by the City at the corner of Adams and Brookhurst in the
City of Huntington Beach was originally acquired by Newport
Beach in the 1920s as a well site. Water was produced from the
wells on the property for many years until salt water intrusion
made the water unusable. In recent years, the recharging of
the Basin by the Orange County Water District has opened up the
possibility that good quality water could again be produced from
wells on the site. In recent years the City has become aware
that it has a valuable piece of property which is not producing
a realistic economic return in its present undeveloped state;
the only revenue is from some billboards on the site. The
question before the Council is what to do with the property.
Re: Special Counsel -2- June 25, 1970
Should it be sold or leased? The City Charter limits leases
to a maximum term of 25 years unless approved by the voters.
Some of the immediate questions which come to mind are:
1. What is the nature and extent of the City's right to
pump water from the subject property?
2. Can the City sever its water rights from the subject
property and transfer them to another site within the
Santa Ana River Basin?
3. Can the City exercise its water rights without joining
the Orange County Water District?
After you have had a chance to review the enclosed material, I
suggest that you and I sit down with Joe Devlin, our Public
Works Director, to define the issues and exchange ideas.
The Council authorized your employment as a consultant at the
rate of $35.00 per hour, with a maximum billing of $1,000. If
this arrangement is acceptable, please sign the duplicate copy
of this letter and return it to me. This letter will serve as
the agreement for your services.
THS :mh
Enc1.
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
Finance Director
Yours very truly,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�
TULLY 1P. SEYMO
City Attorney
I ACCEPT THE ABOVE- STATED OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT:
EDWARD F. TAY` R or ; \`
Taylor & Smith, Attorneys at Law
i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
June 25, 1970
Eduard 8, Taylor, At.to"i y +►t. Law
1-M Offices . of 7 "aylor c; Sai*
50"; ArrOwbead Avenue, Suite M6
Post Offices Rost 1125
San Bernardino, California 92402.
Re: 8MPL0YMENT As t nciAL COUNSEL
Dear Sdr
I am pleased to report that the City Council approved my
request that +cur firm be retained as special legal counsel
to advise the City an its water rights.
Enclosed is some! background material for your review, consisting
of the.following: Report on City Water Wells No. 13 and No. 150
January IL%7y Supplemental Report on Future Sources of Water,
January 1967; Test Drilling and Water Quality Investigations of
Well No. 13, all by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers;
copy of an annexation study prepared by the Orange County
Water District; a copy of the Judgment in the case of Ca bell
vs. a Irvine Company Orange County Superior Court ese
Fro:�ein waiver production statements filed by the
City of Newport Beach with the Orange: County dater District and
the State Water Resources Control Board; an appraisal of the
property at Adams and Brookhurst by Tait Appraisal Company.
dated February 2% 1969; and a preliminary title report on the
Adam and Brookhurst property.
The problem we need your help on is as follows: The property
owned by the City at the corner of Adams and Brookhurst in the
City of Huntington Beach was originally acquired by Newport
Beach in the 1920s as a well site. (hater was produced from the
wells on the property for many years until salt water intrusion
made the water unusable. In recent years, the recharging of
the Basin by the Orange County Water District has opened up the
possibility that good quality water could again be produced from
wells on the site. In recent years the City has become aware
that it has a valuable piece of property which is not producing
a realistic economic return in its present undeveloped state;
the only revenue is from some billboards on the site. The
question before the Council is what to do with the property.
0
Re: Special Counsel -2- :June 25, 1970
Should it be sold or lea^ co rho City Charter limits leases
to a nsximuaa terra of 25 ,.,;ats ualess approved by the voters.
Some o. the immediate questions which come to mind are:
1. What is the nature and extent of the City's right" Lo
Pump eater from the subject property?
2. Can the City sever its water rights from the subject
property and transfer them to another site within the
Santa Ana River Basin?
3. Can the City exercise its water rights without joining,
the u,:ange County Water District?
After you have had a chance to review the enclosed material, i
sugest that you and 2 sit down with ,Joy. Devlin, our Public
Works Director, to define the issues and exchange ideas.
The Council authorized your employment as a consultant at the
rate of $35.00 per hour, with a maximum billing of $1,000. if
this arrangement is acceptable, please sign the duplicate copy
of this letter and return it to me. This letter will serve as
the agreement for your services.
Yours very truly,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TULLY It. SEYMOUR.
City Attorney
THS . mh
Enc 1.
cc: City Clerk/
City Manager
Finance Director
1 ACCEPT THE ABOVE - STATED OFFER OF EXPUY M NTt
for
Taylor & Smith, Attorneys at Lawn