Earlier this year, Louis Brichetto was having breakfast with a local cattleman who mentioned having seen the Brichetto name on a historical water contract he had been reviewing along with some of his own old contracts. The casual remark got Brichetto’s immediate attention.
Brichetto’s roots in Stanislaus County’s Oakdale region go back well over 150 years. His great grandfather made the nine-month trip from the eastern United States around Cape Horn to San Francisco in 1859, lured by the promise of gold in the Sierra Nevada. Paul Brichetto soon realized — as did few other entrepreneurs of the time — that money was to be made providing the gold seekers with the food they needed to keep on digging. According to George Tinkham’s History of Stanislaus County,
“When the whole country between Stockton and Oakdale was almost a continuous wheat field – save for the cattle ranches – and held by the ranch kings of “Octopus” fame, Paul Brichetto, then operating a little garden of leased land on the out-skirts of Stockton, decided he would do a little prospecting…. Later, in Oakdale, he learned the geography of the country with reference to the mining camps and the towns that served as their feeders and supply centers, and he well knew that a miner was always hungry for fresh green stuff, and that money was free in mining camps, and he at once bought his pick of the bottom land…” [and] “…made vegetables the backbone of his young industry. His wagon began to call at farmhouses, and soon he had many wagons, and they pushed their way far up the mountains, and retuned from Grayson’s, Sonora, Angels Camp and other famous camps with gold dust and nuggets that represented a rich profit.”
Water had been in the forefront of Louis Brichetto’s mind ever since he had switched from raising cattle to growing almonds and walnuts in 2004. When he planted orchards outside Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), Brichetto believed that he’d be able to get surface water from both OID and nearby South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). Both districts often had surplus water, which they sometimes sold to out-of-district buyers to the south.
As the nut boom burgeoned, more and more landowners in the rolling hills of eastern Stanislaus County converted their cattle lands to orchards. The entire region received a seismic shock in 2013, when Trinitas Partners, owners of over 7,000 acres in eastern Stanislaus County, were annexed into OID ahead of other appellants for OID surface water, including Louis Brichetto.
Not long afterwards, in 2014, California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which required local agencies “to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans to avoid undesirable results and mitigate overdraft within 20 years.” At the time, many who followed water issues in the San Joaquin Valley believed the groundwater basins would be completely depleted well before the 20-year deadline for achieving sustainability. That’s already happened at many places in the southern part of the Valley. Closer to home, Brichetto has measured severe drops in groundwater levels on land he owns both within and outside OID.
Intrigued by the possibility that an old contract for water might be worth more than the gold that brought his great grandfather to California one-hundred sixty-five years ago, Brichetto delved into the old records his cattleman friend had alluded to. He was stunned to learn that one of the contracts was for the Threlfall Ranch, a property that had been in his family since the early 1900s. Furthermore, the contract stipulated that the price for the water in the contract was listed at $1.50 an acre.
Brichetto immediately made informal inquiries at OID and SSJID, the two irrigation districts named in the contract. In the process, he learned that a neighboring ranch had been receiving water based on an almost identical contract all along. At the time, Brichetto figured that his ranch hadn’t received the water due to an oversight. It was, after all, a very old contract.
However, when Brichetto made an informal appeal to the two districts for water deliveries based on the contract, he was rebuffed. It may be the rejection was based on Brichetto’s role in litigation involving both districts’ previous attempts to sell water outside the region. Brichetto and others successfully opposed the sales, arguing they violated elements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OID and SSJID have a long history of delivering local farmers water below the cost of delivery while selling water to buyers farther south to make up for the cost deficits.
Once it was clear that OID and SSJID had no intention of fulfilling their contractual obligations, Brichetto was forced to hire an attorney whose specialty is contract law. He also issued a formal statement regarding the impasse with OID and SSJID. In part, it reads as follows:
“It’s unfortunate that the OID & SSJID are attempting to shirk their contractual obligations that they acquired in July of 1910 when they purchased the Tulloch System and its pre-1914 water rights as well as assuming the Stanislaus & San Joaquin Water Companies’ contractual water obligations. This is contract case law that has been upheld by a California Supreme Court decision that can’t be reversed by the lower courts.”
Louis Brichetto would much prefer to use surface water for his thirsty almond and walnut orchards in eastern Stanislaus County, where groundwater is too often the only option. He has a long history of purchasing surface water whenever available. He’s especially alarmed that the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) recently rejected local agencies’ and associations’ groundwater sustainability plans. In so doing, DWR warned that the state could take over local groundwater management unless the plans are brought into compliance with state requirements.
“SSJID & OID have historically relied on water sales and abandonments to balance their budget instead of charging their farmers the actual cost of delivery for their high quality surface water. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin is now critically over-drafted and the Modesto Sub-Basin should be categorized by the DWR as critically over-drafted, in my opinion,” wrote Brichetto.
“As an in-district and out-of-district grower, I would like to see the districts charge the full cost of surface water delivery for in-district and 125% the cost of delivery for the out-of-district but in sphere of influence buyers when water is available. Overall, this region is truly blessed with the Oakdale Irrigation District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and Merced Irrigation District.”
Whether or not Louis Brichetto’s long opposition to out-of-the-region water sales has been a factor in rejection of what looks like an iron-clad contract may in the end be irrelevant. He’s got the contract, his neighbor receives water on an almost identical contract, and, most of all, history seems to be on his side.
[…] Story continues […]
[…] Story continues […]
Great article. I hope Louis prevails in court.
Ok, now keep us up to date on the pace of the litigation and the outcomes of any and all agreements. Thanks. Way to go, Lou!
Great article and history,
Unfortunately this story is reminiscent of other California Special Districts that pick and choose winners and losers under the same policy that come before them.
Will the OID & SSJID Directors (Local Sovereign Immunity)protect them from personal liability in a (Deliberate Indifference) lawsuit ?
LawDog
We need to understand water is a public resource not a private entity and develop water policies that protect our public resource. California developed water policies and contracts 125 years ago or more on the heels of the Little Ice Age, and that doesn’t exist anymore. We must protect our water like the air we breathe and allow farmers and others access to water that enhances the public good. We must manage water distribution to stop theft like this described in the LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-28/panoche-official-pleads-guilty-in-water-theft-conspiracy
Well said.
Great question but this is Contract law which is perpetual in this case.
The California Supreme Court has already ruled on this contract.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ceebadd7b0493481dc52
Unfortunately, OID and its water council who is conflicted in my opinion by his 75 million dollars in OID water Sales including my Contracted pre-1914 water on this case conveniently omitted my Claim Letter from my attorney which details the case merits and timeline. The Public has the right to know the truth on this contract issue that has already been affirmed by the California Supreme Court.
FORES I MACKO I JOHNSTON I CHARTRAND
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
Robert P. Fores I Michael J. Macko (Ret.) I Anthony D. Johnston I Cory B. Chartrand I Leslie Kalim
McHugh I Megan D. Johnson
May 20, 2024
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
1205 East F St. Oakdale, CA 95361
VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Claim by Threfall Ranch, LP, a California Limited Partnership Our File: BRILJ.10
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am legal counsel to the claimant, Threfall Ranch, L.P., a California Limited Partnership
(“Claimant”).
Claimant owns land which includes the Remaining Brichetto Parcel (defined below). Pursuant to the
Brichetto Contract (defined below), which creates a covenant running with the land. Claimant is
entitled purchase water at the rate of $1.50 per acre to irrigate the Remaining Brichetto Parcel.
Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District are, ultimately, successors
in interest of Stanislaus and San Joaquin Water Company, a corporation, on the one hand, and
Claimant is, ultimately, the successor in interest of W.A. Threlfall, on the other hand, to the
Brichetto Contract. Claimant’s subject land, which includes the Remaining Brichetto Parcel and the
Original Brichetto Parcel (defined below) is often referred to as the
W.A. Threlfall Ranch or, simply, the Threlfall Ranch. Claimant owns the Threlfall Ranch.
Claimant submits this letter, a witness list, and Exhibits 1 through 18, to substantiate the claim.
This letter includes information responsive to sections 3, 4, and 6 of the water district’s claim
form which is submitted herewith.
On July 26, 1895, the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Water Company, a corporation (“SSJW Company”),
executed a mortgage on all its property, including its main canal and lateral ditches. (Stanislaus
Water Company v. Bachman (1908) 152 Cal. 716, 720.) SSJW Company’s main canal was often referred to
as the Tulloch Ditch or Tulloch Canal. The Tulloch Ditch was the main canal north of the Stanislaus
River. The Tulloch Ditch and related lateral ditches were often referred to collectively as the
Tulloch System. In July 1910, Oakdale Irrigation District (“OID”) and South San Joaquin Irrigation
District (“SSJID”) jointly purchased the Tulloch System. (See Oakdale Irrigation District – History
Timeline and Key Events.)
On May 6, 1896, SSJW Company executed a contract with W.A. Threlfall (“Brichetto Contract”) for
467.98 acres (“Original Brichetto Parcef’). The Brichetto Contract was recorded on May 11, 1896, in
Liber 6, Miscellaneous, at page 431, Records of Stanislaus County,
(209) 527-9899 I (209) 527-2889 FAX I http://www.foresmacko.com I 1600 G Street, Suite 103, Modesto, CA
95354
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 2
California. A duplicate of a certified, recorded copy of the Brichetto Contract is submitted
herewith as EXHIBIT 1. A duplicate of the transcribed Brichetto Contract is submitted herewith as
EXHIBIT 2.
A map showing the Original Brichetto Parcel is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 3. Brett Chappell, a
California licensed land surveyor, prepared said map.
Following is a summary of the Brichetto Contract:
Parties: SSJW Company and W.A. Threlfall.
Initial Acreage affected: 467.98 acres (Ex. 2, p. 1, § 1).
Covenant Running with the Land: “And the said parties agree to and with each that this contract
shall have the force and effect of a covenant running to and with the lands of the party of the
second part [W.A. Threlfall] and the canal of the party of the first part [SSJW Company]” (Ex. 2,
p. 6, § 10).
Consideration from Threlfall:
A. Permanent right of way over lands ofW.A. Threlfall, free of cost, for the canals of the SSJW
Company with right of entry for all purposes connected with the canal (Ex. 2, pp. 6-7, § 7).
B. Payment of $10 per acre for water agreed to be delivered (Ex. 2, pp. 4-5, § 4):
1. Option 1: payment over time: 80 cents per acre per year for 20 years, at 6% interest per annum;
or
11. Option 2: lump sum of whatever amount unpaid at any time.
C. Payment of $1.50 per year for each acre as a water rental for water used (Ex. 2, p. 5, § 5).
Consideration from SSJW Company:
A. W.A. Threlfall to receive sufficient water “for irrigating purposes only on said land … as
often as necessary to make it available for use upon said lands for agricultural purposes (Ex. 2,
p. 4, § 2).
B. SSJW Company to construct “head-gates, and weirs and other arrangements or devices through
which the water [for delivery under the contract] shall be drawn from said canal” at expense of
SSJW Company (Ex. 2, p. 4, § 2).
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 3
On June 18, 1896, SSJW Company executed two contracts with Richard Threlfall with essentially
identical terms as the Brichetto Contract for irrigation of two parcels: (1) 423 acres and (2) 461
acres (“Bachman Parcef’). (The Bachman Parcel is now known as the U-3 Ranch. The U-3 Ranch is
supplied out-of-district water by 010.) Both contracts were recorded with the Stanislaus County
Recorder. A duplicate of a certified, recorded copy of the contract for the Bachman Parcel is
submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 4. A duplicate of the transcribed contract for the Bachman Parcel is
submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 5.
In 1896, SSJW Company’s mortgage was foreclosed and a receiver was appointed by court order for the
property and estate of SSJW Company, as set forth in a contract executed by SSJW Company and W.A.
Threlfall on May 23, 1898 (Ex. 7, pp. 5). Said May 23, 1898 contract was recorded on June 13, I
898, in Liber 7, Miscellaneous, at page 84, Stanislaus County Records. A duplicate of a certified,
recorded copy of the May 23, 1898 contract is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 6. A duplicate of the
transcribed May 23, 1898 contract is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 7.
On May 16, 1898, the Superior Court ordered the receiver to cancel and annul a portion of certain
lands subject to the Brichetto Contract based on impracticability of the SSJW Company to furnish
water (Ex. 7, p. 5).
On May 23, 1898, pursuant to the May 16, 1898 court order, W.A. Threlfall and the receiver entered
into a contract to cancel and annul only certain lands subject to the Brichetto Contract, but
specifically recited that the following acreage (“Remaining Brichetto Parcef’) is still subject to
the contract (Ex. 7, pp. 5-8):
All of Parcel 1 Part of Parcel 4
27.61 acres
135.07 acres
Part of Parcel 5 8.91 acres Total 171.59 acres
A map, prepared by Brett Chappell, showing the Remaining Brichetto Parcel is submitted herewith as
EXHIBIT 8. Claimant owns the land which is included in the Remaining Brichetto Parcel.
On May 16, 1898, the Superior Court ordered the receiver to cancel and annul the contract for
irrigation of Richard Threlfall’s 423 acre parcel; however, no order was made concerning the
Bachman Parcel. Accordingly, the parties entered into a written contract dated May 23, 1898 to
cancel the contract as to the 423 acre parcel. A duplicate of a certified, recorded copy of the May
23, 1898 contract is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 9. A duplicate of the transcribed May 23, 1898
contract is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT I 0.
At some time after W.A. Threlfall and Richard Threlfall had entered into their respective 1896
contracts with SSJW Company, in the late 1890s W.A. Threfall and Richard Threlfall constructed for
the latter a lateral ditch (“Lateral Ditch”) leading from the point of diversion in SSJW Company’s
canal. (SSJW Company’s canal was the Tulloch Ditch.) The canal and related water system (the
Tulloch System), including the Lateral Ditch, was owned by SSJW
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 4
Company and its successors, including the Stanislaus Water Company (“SWC’), Tulloch Water Company
(“TWC’) and, ultimately, South San Joaquin Irrigation District (“SSJJD”) and Oakdale Irrigation
District (“OID”). The Lateral Ditch was constructed through the Original Brichetto Parcel, and no
other land, to reach the Bachman Parcel, then owned by Richard Threlfall. (Stanislaus Water Company
v. Bachman, op. cit. at 719-720.) Neither W.A. Threlfall nor Richard Threlfall was required under
his respective 1896 contract to construct the Lateral Ditch. Rather, SSJW Company was required to
do so per the 1896 contracts because, inter alia, the Lateral Ditch became the property of SSJW
Company upon its construction. SSJW Company “took possession of the lateral ditch and thereafter
used it to convey water from its main canal to the lands of Richard Threlfall and other lands in
the vicinity. (Ibid.) Submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 11 is a map dated June 6, 1911, titled Lands
Claiming Irrigation. This map depicts the Lateral Ditch. Submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 12 is the
same map dated June 6, 1911, with land which was included in the Original Brichetto Parcel boxed in
red for reference, prepared by Brett Chappell.
In 1898, S. Bachman purchased the 461 acre Bachman Parcel via a foreclosure of Richard Threlfall’s
mortgage. (Stanislaus Water Company v. Bachman, op. cit. at 720.)
Also, on December 17, 1898, SSJW Company’s mortgage on property was foreclosed, including the
Lateral Ditch, and purchased by J. Dalzell Brown pursuant to the foreclosure.
Thereafter, Mr. Brown deeded the Lateral Ditch to SWC. (Ibid.)
During the year 1900, S. Bachman owned the Bachman Parcel (461 acres) while SWC owned the rights to
water and canals. (Stanislaus Water Company v. Bachman, op. cit. at 720.)
In 1903, Paul Brichetto purchased land from W.A. Threlfall, including the Original Brichetto
Parcel. A duplicate of the recorded deed for this transaction is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 13.
Claimant’s principal, Louis F. Brichetto, is the great-grandson and successor in interest of Paul
Brichetto.
In the early 1900s, SWC sued S. Bachman for $920 for water delivered. S. Bachman contended he only
owed $600 (400 acres @$1.50/acre) per the terms of the June 18, 1896 contract. (Stanislaus Water
Company v. Bachman, op. cit. at 718.)
In 1908, the California Supreme Court in Stanislaus Water Company v. Bachman affirmed a judgment in
favor of S. Bachman, ruling he was entitled to receive water on the Bachman Parcel at a rate of
$1.50/acre in perpetuity based on the June 18, 1896 contract which is essentially identical to the
Brichetto Contract. The Supreme Court’s holding and analysis as it relates to the instant claim is
discussed below.
In 1911, engineers for SSJID and OID conducted a study to determine each district’s out
of-district water obligations. This study includes two letters prepared by the districts’
engineers, Duryea, Haehl & Gilman, dated January 3, 1911, and a letter from Frankenheimer Bros. to
Andrew Swickard, SSJID’s resident engineer. A duplicate of the study is submitted herewith as
EXHIBIT 14. SSJID provided the claimant a duplicate of this study.
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 5
In the first paragraph of the first letter, the author, Andrew Swickard, confirms that the letter
discusses the obligations of SSJID and OID “to furnish water for irrigation to lands outside of
these Districts.” Page 4 of said letter confirms the districts are obligated to deliver water for
irrigation to Paul Brichetti (aka Brichetto) pursuant to the Brichetto Contract as to the Remaining
Brichetto Parcel. The author confirms partial cancellation of the Brichetto Contract (Ex. 6 & 7)
pursuant to the May 23, 1898 contract; thus, the districts are only obligated to deliver irrigation
water to the Remaining Brichetto Parcel, comprised of 171.59 acres. (Author’s note: there is a math
error by the engineer: 467.98 less 171.59 equals 296.39 acres cancelled, not 324. The cancellation
contract, Ex. 7, controls.)
Likewise, on page 4 of the first letter included in said I911 study (Ex. 14), the author confirms
the districts’ obligation to deliver irrigation water to Frankenheimer Bros. pursuant to the June
13, 1896 contract between SSJW Company and Richard Threlfall. Again, this contract is essentially
identical to the Brichetto Contract. The letter is signed by Andrew Swickard.
In sum, as of 1911, the districts acknowledged they were obligated under the Brichetto Contract.
Nothing since has abrogated this obligation.
The second letter included in said 1911 study (Ex. 14) confirms that Andrew Swickard gathered facts
in connection with the respective claims of Frankenheimer Bros. and Paul Brichetti for irrigation
(see introductory paragraph). The first page confirms that Frankenheimer Bros.’ claim arises from
the June 18, 1896 contract between Richard Threlfall and SSJW Company. Section 5 of the letter
(page 2) confirms a successful suit was initiated by Frankenheimer in connection with the claim for
irrigation water. Attached to the letter is a duplicate of Frankenheimer Bros.’ correspondence
dated January 4, 1911 to Andrew Swickard confirming: (i) SSJID’s acquisition of the rights and
obligations of SWC (first paragraph); and
(ii) Frankenheimer Bros.’ right to irrigation water for the 461 acres [the Bachman Parcel].
On February 9, 1913, the respective boards of OID and SSJID held a joint meeting of directors. A
duplicate of the relevant pages of the minutes for the meeting is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 15.
In this meeting, the directors acknowledged and recognized the water districts are obligated to
fulfill the contracts purchased with the Tulloch System, including, but not limited to, the
Frankenheimer contract, which is the original contract between SSJW Company and Richard Threlfall
dated June 18, 1896. Having jointly assumed the duties under the old contracts related to the
Tulloch System, one water district may not delegate a duty to the other water district. (Seeley v.
Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 863, 237 Cal.Rptr. 282.) Each water district received a benefit
under the 1896 contracts, such as the Lateral Ditch. A water district may not receive the benefit
but shirk the duty. Each water district owes Claimant duties under the Brichetto Contract.
The Bachman Supreme Court case is on point with Claimant’s claim. wing is a brief discussion of the Bachman case:
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 6
Bachman posited he was a successor in interest to the 1896 contract and that SWC, as successor in
interest to SSJW Company, had the obligation to continue making deliveries to Bachman’s land at a
rate of $1.50 per acre in perpetuity as a contract that runs with the land and which is appurtenant
to his property [also the Frankenheimer and U-3 property].
SWC posited the contract did not run with the land.
The Supreme Court rejected SWC’s argument, holding that the 1896 contract runs with the land and
that the owner of the Bachman Parcel has the right to receive and purchase water at the rate of
$1.50 per acre per annum in perpetuity. (Stanislaus Water Company v. Bachman, op. cit. at 727.)
There is no material distinction between the Bachman case and the instant matter. The subject
contracts are essentially identical. As discussed above, SSJW Company did not, despite its
contractual obligation, construct the Lateral Ditch and related water system which ran through the
Threlfall Ranch and which connected the Tulloch Ditch to the Bachman Parcel. The Lateral Ditch
delivered water to property owners in its vicinity. On the heels of this and historically
contemporaneously, in 1911, the SSJID engineer believed the Brichetto Contract was in force,
followed by the SSJID and OID’s directors recognition of the Tulloch obligations (which includes
the Brichetto Contract) two years later.
In sum, the Brichetto Contract is appurtenant to and benefits the Remaining Brichetto Parcel. As
such, SSJID and OID are obligated to deliver water to said land at the rate of $1.50 per acre per
annum in perpetuity.
Despite co-obligor SSJID continuing to honor the 1896 Richard Threlfall contract, OID denies the
validity and enforceability of the identical Brichetto Contract and will not deliver Claimant water
pursuant to same, as set forth in the email exchange between Claimant’s attorney, Anthony Johnston,
and OID and SSJID’s attorney, Tim O’Laughlin. A duplicate of this email exchange is submitted
herewith as EXHIBIT 16. This email exchange, titled “Brichetto request for water” by Mr.
O’Laughlin, and OID’s related refusal to deliver water pursuant to the Brichetto Contract, is a
breach of said contract.
Of note, Mr. O’Laughlin is patently negatively biased against Louis F. Brichetto. In correspondence
dated February 26, 2015, Mr. O’Laughlin referred to Mr. Brichetto as a land speculator outside the
district. (Ex. 17, p. 2, last paragraph.) In fact, Mr. Brichetto is a farmer, farming the same land
that has been in his family for over a century. A duplicate of Mr.
O’Laughlin’s correspondence is submitted herewith as EXHIBIT 17. In any event, OID continues to
make out-of-basin water sales, which has resulted in critically overdrafted groundwater basins,
while denying Claimant’s right to pre-1914 water. Submitted for reference as EXHIBIT 18 is a
duplicate of the California Department of Water Resources map as of February 11, 2019.
Also troubling, during the first week of January of this year, SSJID engineer Forrest Killingsworth
scolded Jim Mangente for showing Mr. Brichetto the 1911 engineer letters (Ex. 14). Again, included
therein is the recognition of the Brichetto Contract.
Oakdale Irrigation District Attn: Claims
May 20, 2024
Page 7
Remedy sought: Claimant requests OID to perform the Brichetto Contract and deliver water for the
present irrigation season, and each irrigation season hereafter, to the Remaining Brichetto Parcel
at the rate of $1.50 per acre.
For each irrigation season, commencing with 2024, in which OID fails or refuses to deliver water to
Claimant pursuant to the terms of the Brichetto Contract, Claimant also seeks monetary compensation
equal to the difference between the actual cost of water purchased for the irrigation season for
the Remaining Brichetto Parcel and $1.50 for each acre of the Remaining Brichetto Parcel irrigated
during the irrigation season (this should always equal 171.59 acres).
If the instant claim is denied, Claimant will file an action seeking, primarily, specific
performance of the Brichetto Contract, plus contract damages for each irrigation season, commencing
with the present season, in which OID fails to deliver water to Claimant pursuant to the Brichetto
Contract. The formula for contract damages is actual cost less contract price, as discussed in the
preceding paragraph relative to monetary compensation.
Very truly yours,
FORES MACKO JOHNSTON & CHARTRAND
ANTHONY D. JOHNSTON
Email: [email protected]
ADJ:aj Enclosures
cc: Louis F. Brichetto
Louis you deserve this water and contract law is on your side.