Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />00214~ <br /> <br />RECLAMATION CONTRACTS UNDER. 9(e) <br />AND THE <br />INTEGRITY OF STATE WATER LAW <br /> <br />STATEMENT BY PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, DIVISION <br />OF WATER RESOURCES, FOR PRESENTATION BEFORl <br />THE WATER PROJECT AUTHORITY ON PROPOSED <br />POSITION IN THE IVANHOE IRR. DIST. V. ALL PAR. <br />TIES, ETC., AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS <br /> <br />Henry Holsinger, a native Californian, <br />received his lega' education in California <br />and was admitted to the State Bar in 1915. <br />He first engaged in private practice in <br />Yuba County, later in Kern County, and in <br />1925 in Sacramento. In the spring of 1930 <br />he entered State service on the legal staff <br />of the Division of Water Resources. There- <br />after, he has continuously been so employed. <br />Early in 1949 he was advanced to his pres- <br />ent position of Principal Attorney, Division <br />of Water Resources. During his approxi- <br />mately 24 years of State service, he has <br />devoted his attention to the varied legal <br />problems of California', complex law of <br />waters. During his entire period of State <br />service he has given close attention to legal <br />problems involved in Federal.State relation- <br />ships, and for the last 20 years of-his service <br />has made a specialty of the Federal reclama. <br />tion laws. <br /> <br />1 do not consider it required or proper to occur.y the <br />time of the Authority in attempting to give a detai ed re- <br />view either of the history. of the Ivanhoe case or of how <br />it came about that I entered an appearance therein, except <br />to briefly state that in the first instance I entered a" <br />appearance as a friend ofthe Court on behalf ofthe Water <br />Project Authority, and 'aterlursuant to order of the Court <br />on its own motion I entere an appearance on behalf of <br />the State Engineer as a defendant. <br /> <br />Judgment has been entered by the trial court invalidat. <br />ing the contract and appeals by the district and the Attor~ <br />ney General from the judgment .re pending before the <br />Supreme Court. The question now .t issue is whether the <br />Autho,rity .nd the State Engineer or either of them should <br />be represented on the appeal. It is my present contem. <br />pl.tion, unless I receive specific instructions to the contr.ry, <br />to file a brief in the Ivanhoe c.se on beh.lf of the Stat. <br />Engineer .s . respondent, 'and in th.t brief to continue <br />....enti.lly the s.me represent.tions .s have been m.d. <br />to the trial court on behalf of the Authority and the St.t. <br />Engineer, insofar as those representations are now applic- <br />able. <br /> <br />I h.ve heretofore .ttempted to briefly summ.riul the <br />position I propose to take in . memorandum to Mr. Ed. <br />monston .s Executive '. Officer. of the Authority d.ted <br />November 27, 1953, subject: "Position of W.ter Projed <br />Authority on Appe.1 in Contract V.lidation Actions." <br />*Copies of this memorandum h.ve been furnished to the <br />Authority. Also, in a two-p.ge unsigned memorandum <br />dated December 29, 1953, 1 attempted to further sum- <br />marize .nd concisely state the substance of the memor. <br />andum of November 27, 1953. This I.ter memor.ndum is <br />entitled "Brief Summ.ry of Positi.on Proposed to be Taken <br />in Pending Appeals in Contr.ct V.lid.tion Cases." I <br />underst.nd that copies of this memor.ndum have also been <br />furnished to the Authority. In the prep.r.tion of the for. <br />mer memor.ndum I was impressed with the d.nger of <br />oversimplification in any attempt to concisely st.te the <br />proposed position. Th.t memor.ndum consisted of 14 <br /> <br />.Avallable In mlrneo9raphed form from W.te, Economlc:l Commltt.. <br /> <br />3> <br />