WSP00671

• File Number: 8210.140.20 A
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations - States Forum ‎(CRBSF)‎ - Colorado River Board Of California
• State: CA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 2/2/1954
• Author: Irrigation Dists Ass
• Title: Which Way California
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

\

('i."\ - J" ("
dlJJ ad

)

Henry Holsinger, a native Californian,
received his legal education in California
and was admitted to the State Bar in 1915.
He first engaged in private practice in
Yuba County, later in Kern County, and in
1925 in Sacramento. In the spring of 1930
he entered State service on the legal staff
o-f the Division of Water Resources. There~
after, he has continuously. been so employed.
Early in 1949 he was advanced to his pres-
ent positio.n of Principal Attorney, Division
of Water Resources. During his approxi~
mately 24 years of State service, he has
devoted his attention to the varied legal
problems 'of California's cOl'(lplex law of
waters. During his entire period of State
service he has given close attention to legal
problems involved in Federal-State relation-
ships, and for the last 20 years of hi. service
has made a specialty of the Federal reclama-
tion laws.

'\

I'
';

R.~~ATION CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 9{~ )
AND THE
INTEGRITY OF STATE WATER LAW

STATEMENT BY PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, DIVISION
OF WATER RESOURCES, FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE
THE WATER PROJECT AUTHORITY ON PROPOSED
POSITION IN THE IVANHOE IRR. DIST. V. ALL PAR-,
TIES, ETC., AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS

I do not consider it required or proper to occupy the
time of the Authority in attempting to give a detailed re-
view either of the history of the Ivanhoe case or of how
it came about that I entered an appearance therein, except
to briefly state that in the first instance I entered an
appearance as a friend of the Court on behalf of the Water
Project Authority, and later!ursuant to order of the Court
on its own motion I entere an appearance on behalf of
the State Engineer as a defendant.

Judgment has been entered by the trial court invalidat-
ing the contract and appeals by the district and the Attor-
ney General from the judgment are pending before the
Supreme Court. The question now at issue is whether the
Authority and the State Engineer or either of them should".
be represented on the appeal. It is my present contem-'
plation, unless I receive specific instructions to the contrary.-
to file a brief in the Ivanhoe case on behalf of the State
Engineer as a respondent, and in that brief to continue
essentially the same representations as have been made
to the trial court on behalf of the Authority and the State
Engineer, insofar as those representations are now applic..
able.

I have heretofore attempted to briefly summa;ize tha
position I propose to take in a memorandum to Mr.. Ed-
monston as Executive Officer of the Authority dated
November 27, 1953, subject: "Position of Water Project
Authority on Appeal in Contract Validation Actions."
"Copies of this memorandum have been furnished to the
Authority. Also, in a two-page unsigned memorandum
dated December 29, 1953, I attempted to further sum-
marize and concisely state the substance of the memor-
andum of November 27, 1953. This later memorandum is
entitled "Brief Summary of Position Proposed to be Taken
in Pending Appeals in Contract Validation Cases." J
understand that copies of this memorandum have also been
furnished to the Authority. In the preparation of the for-
mer memorandum I was impressed with the danger of
oversimplification in any attempt to concisely state the
proposed position. That memorandum consisted of 14

'Auilable in mimeoQraphlld form from Water Economicl Committe.

3