Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />.. -~. ~ <br />t;~ojl' <br />(see Eminent domain) provision wl10 made for construction of the <br />physical connection between the San Diego aqueduct and the <br />Colorado River aqueduct. At the end of the fiscal year these <br />matters were receiving active consideration, so that formal action <br />could be taken for submission of the proposition of annexation to <br />the electors of the Authority in time to complete the annexation <br />prior to December :)1. 1946, in the event of approval of the requi- <br />oite propositions by the electors, <br />Inquiries were received from other areas considering the possi- <br />bility of seeking annexation to the District. The legal aspects were <br />discussed with representatives of these areas, notably the repre- <br />sentatives of the West Basin, Pomona, and Ontario areas, with <br />opecial reference to the formation of municipal water districts in <br />the event annexation should be requested. No official action initi- <br />ating the formation of an)' such district had been taken by the end <br />of the fiscal ;'ear, <br /> <br />LEGAL <br /> <br />65 <br /> <br />Claims <br /> <br />Pursuant to Section 6,1 of the Metropolitan Water District Act, <br />added by Stats, 1945, Chapter 1084, five claims for damages to <br />lands, asserted to have been caused b)' the District's interference <br />with their water supplies, were tiled, After negotiations and con. <br />sideration b;' the Board of Directors, these claims were denied and <br />claimants so advised, No suits on any of these rejected claims had <br />been filed b)' the end of the fiscal year. <br /> <br />Damnge tt; l""ds alld wate,. ,.ights <br /> <br />..In, the suit pending- in-the.Superior Court-of- Riverside, County <br />alleging interference with the water supply of Lake Elsinore and <br />seeking injunctive relief, the District filed its answer after its de- <br />murrer to the complaint was presented and overruled, A similar <br />answer filed by the co-defendant Temeocal Water Company was <br />attacked by the plaintiff for asserted legal insufficiencies and the <br />plaintiff's objections were sustained in part and denied in part, <br />Plaintiff requested and obtained from the District successive stipu- <br />lations extending plaintiff's time beyond the end of the fiscal year <br />within which to make a similar attack upon the District's answer. <br />In the four other suits pending at the commencement of the year, <br />alleging interference with water rights and seeking injunctive re- <br />lief, tbe District's demul"l'ers to the respective complaints were <br />taken off calendar and not reset for hearing, Another suit assert- <br /> <br />II <br />\ <br />~ <br />