Legal

Legal rulings, opinions, contracts, CEQA, EIRs

Mount Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides?

Take a comprehensive look at the City of Mount Shasta Water Rights Ordinance - what the ordinance does; what it does not do; who enacts it into law; and why it focuses on "rights" and specifically the right of nature.

City of Mount Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance

Initiative Measure to be submitted to City of Mount Shasta voters in November 2010 elections.

Letter to MCSD regarding Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood ruling

Letter from Protect Our Waters to the McCloud Community Services District summarizing implications of Save Tara ruling on negotiating contracts before CEQA process is completed.

Download here.

Effect of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood on Potential Nestle Contract

Memorandum regarding effect of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood on potential nestle contract.

Download here

Community groups challenge McCloud Community Services District Board on legality of Water System Master Plan

On January 16, 2008, attorneys for California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the McCloud Watershed Council delivered an 18-page letter to the McCloud Community Services District Board questioning the legality of the Board's approval of a Water System Master Plan (WSMP). The letter cautioned that the WSMP was adopted in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in part because it appears to be closely related to the Nestle Water Bottling Plant Project currently undergoing environmental review

Authority of McCloud Community Services District Regarding Nestle’s Proposed Water Bottling Facility

In fall of 2007, Attorney at law Donald B. Mooney issued a Memorandum to the MWC expressing his legal opinion concerning the authority of the McCloud Community Services District regarding Nestle's Proposed Water Bottling Facility. This insight is very valuable, as it puts into perspective the legal position the MCSD is in at this point, based on the Third District Court of Appeals ruling.

You can read it here.

Authority of McCloud Community Services District Regarding Nestle’s Proposed Water Bottling Facility

Attorney at law Donald B. Mooney has issued a Memorandum to the MWC expressing his legal opinion concerning the authority of the McCloud Community Services District regarding Nestle's Proposed Water Bottling Facility. This insight is very valuable, as it puts into perspective the legal position the MCSD is in at this point, based on the Third District Court of Appeals ruling.

Click here to view the memorandum.

Thousands of Nestle comments being reviewed

The public comment period on the proposed McCloud Nestle bottling plant draft
Environmental Impact Report has ended and the task of sorting out the 4,000 comments
and including them into the final EIR is underway.

“All of the comments will be included in the final EIR,” said Mark Teague, president of
Pacific Municipal Consultants, the company contracted to complete the EIR. “Nothing
will be left out.”

Teague said the final EIR will not be ready for delivery to the Siskiyou County Planning
Commission until the spring 2007.

Sale and Purchase of Spring Water Between McCloud Community Services District and Nestle Waters North America

Original 2003 contract between McCloud Community Services District and Nestle Waters North America for the sale of McCloud's spring water.

Download here.

Syndicate content