WSP11068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I , I' \ \ ) \ .~ '~L r" .~..; ... ~ . LEGAL 9I Meetings were had with representatives of the United States Navy in an effort to adjust and settle a claim for water furnished the Navy by the District. which claim now is pending in the form of an appeal from the decision of t.he contracting officer to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. In January 1948, the United States Court of Claims rendered a decision in a case entitled Cotton Land Company, et al. v. United States, in which it was decided that the plaintiff Cotton Land Company is entitled to compensation for approximately 9,000 acres of land situated in Arizona and alleged to have been inundated or isolated by reason of the impounding of water behind Parker Dam. Following this decision, the case was set for hearing in July 1949, before a commissioner for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff might be entitled. While the District is not a party to this action, it is faced with the poosible contingent liability, under the Parker Dam contract, to reimburse the United States for the amount of any judgment ren- dered. During the fiscal year, members of the legal and engineering etaffs rendered assistance to attol'l1eys and witnesses for the United States in preparing evidence to be presented of the physical con- dition and value of plaintiff's lands, and members of the lega] staff aided also in the determination of legal questions involved in the controver.sy. In April 1949, suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by Clark County, Nevada, against the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power to enforce the provisions of an ordinanee uy which the county seeks to impose license fees of one-tenth mill for each kilowatt-hour of energy generated at Hoover Dam power plant. The amount of such license fees, if collected, would be reflected in the rates charged for Hoover power. The District, being an allottee of Hoover power, is concerned in the outcome of the suit, and members of the legal department are assisting attorneys for the Department of Water and Power in resisting the enforcement of the ordinance which is believed to be invalid on constitutional grounds. State legislation The Metropolitan Water District Act was not amended at the 1!l49 session of the California Legislature. No amendments were proposed by the District. A measure was sponsored by outside interests to amend the Act to change the method of voting by the