HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcDonough Holland and Allen*
I
MABTlt. MtOONOuON OCNMI 0 O'Ntn.
AirR(0 I MOllAND DAVID w. ROIT
MjCt ' ALkts ■ U*AN H. COl'NG
v tADfcOw aorr • ■WCt "..'.*..■.,■
jO»tP» I COOMCS. Jt »t'CC A wOOO'AND
WI^MAH 0 MOkLIMMt, J* MlCHACt. 1. fCi»T'
DAV<D J. .-_ ■' 3* .:-■. ■■■ B.WUUW OC*"NC
CLMtR R »»..*:!< ANN M MORR v
mCM»«S w mc«oil DAVID t. tCATTr
OQNAL,0 C ROCi.t H(k««1 C. Null., JR.
• £«»»; * OSCN RiCHARO I.. Of COS*'
mettAHB i i*»s:i JE-TA* m JONIS
OAR* » lovts.oat WIU'AM i.owt"
C hCHAH fROWH ( C - JA*lO » «Mt: K\
TRUCK t ■,,,:s I'.U.lX
James Ernest Simon, Esq.
Wood, Porter, Simon & Graham
P. 0. Box 2819
Truckee, CA 95734
Dear Jim:
McDoNonoH, HOLLAND & ALLEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS
555 CAPITOL MAUL.SUITE 950
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581*
!9i6) AA4-39DO
January 30, 1981
GG» IE* '■■•''■
p'
iiBOB'iBQBi
404I M«< ARTHUR »OULtVARO. SUITt <*0
NCWRORT MACM, CALIFORNIA • •••C
t»i4: B33-I10*
IN Ri»,i "fin TO:
■ /
^/Xf-
I
At the last meeting of the Board of Directors of
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District I was asked to
examine a deed, copy enclosed, presented by Truckee Sanitary
District representatives, dated Se^tt \ber 27, 1941, for its
impact on a propose! §?*?»<> "°nt between that District and
ours.
Dan Cook has c-v »>j request sent me, and you, and
the District, and the Manager of the Sanitary District, a
letter and map describing the physical situation.
Based on Dan's map, and my own scrutiny of the
deed, the latter does not seem to have relevance to the
proposed agreement. The requirement for water in the deed
is that to be delivered to the westerly edge of the land
conveyed, which is far from the River View Drive line pro-
vided by the proposed agreement.
It may
the deed when we
successor to McGl
provision for del
creating discrimi
as Sutter Butte C
Cal. 179 at 190,
Vernon v. Souther
378; I have consi
be soon enough to determine the validity of
are asked to perform under it, as a
ashan Water Company. My belief is that the
ivery of water in the deed is a preference,
nation, which is invalid under such cases
anal Co. v. Railroad Commission (1927) 202
affirmed (1929) 279 U.S. 125, and City of
n California Edison Co. (1961) 191 Cal. App.2d
stently so held in similar cases for other
/'
I
James Ernest Simon, Esq. ■2- January 30, 1981
public agencies. If Sanitary District counsel does not
agree, perhaps we should bring an action for declaratory
relief, and both move for summary judgment.
Sincerely yours,
Martin McDonough
Attorney
MMcD:pa
enc.
cc: directors
Douglas E. Holt
w/enc.
I