to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for The Centennial Reservoir and Power Supply Project and payment of just compensation by NID, in accordance with law. PG&E Response to the Protest of Nevada Irrigation District On December 17, 2015 PG&E responded to the NID protest. PG&E argues that NID’s request should be rejected because: 1) it is on conclusions about a water storage project that is only in preliminary stages of development; 2) it is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the property; and, 3) the proposed CE provides the necessary mechanisms to address changes in ownership and/or use of the property. PG&E points out that NID acknowledges that the project has not been approved and the plan is tentative. Because there is no final project defined, it is not possible to evaluate whether and what impacts might be caused to the Property or proposed CE by such development. PG&E believes it is premature for NID to conclude that the proposed water storage project will be approved or that the proposed transfer of land and CE contemplated in AL 4728-E are inconsistent with its plans. NID’s request that the transfer of fee title and the CE be subject to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for it water storage project is both impractical and inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment, which is to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. NID’s request to nullify the fee transfer of the Property to Placer County is effectively a request for the CPUC to require Placer County to transfer the Property to NID when NID determines it needs the Property for its water storage project development. PG&E states that incorporating a termination provision in the CE as suggested by NID is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. Moreover, incorporation of such a provision in the proposed CE is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 815, et seq., of the California Civil Code, which defines a conservation easement
to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for The Centennial Reservoir and Power Supply Project and payment of just compensation by NID, in accordance with law. PG&E Response to the Protest of Nevada Irrigation District On December 17, 2015 PG&E responded to the NID protest. PG&E argues that NID’s request should be rejected because: 1) it is on conclusions about a water storage project that is only in preliminary stages of development; 2) it is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the property; and, 3) the proposed CE provides the necessary mechanisms to address changes in ownership and/or use of the property. PG&E points out that NID acknowledges that the project has not been approved and the plan is tentative. Because there is no final project defined, it is not possible to evaluate whether and what impacts might be caused to the Property or proposed CE by such development. PG&E believes it is premature for NID to conclude that the proposed water storage project will be approved or that the proposed transfer of land and CE contemplated in AL 4728-E are inconsistent with its plans. NID’s request that the transfer of fee title and the CE be subject to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for it water storage project is both impractical and inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment, which is to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. NID’s request to nullify the fee transfer of the Property to Placer County is effectively a request for the CPUC to require Placer County to transfer the Property to NID when NID determines it needs the Property for its water storage project development. PG&E states that incorporating a termination provision in the CE as suggested by NID is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. Moreover, incorporation of such a provision in the proposed CE is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 815, et seq., of the California Civil Code, which defines a conservation easement
171028476.docx