5. Opposition to the Settlement Agreement;
Replies to Opposition

Nelson opposed the settlement and contended that receiving $10,000 and $2,000 a year for 10 years was not a reasonable outcome where he had advanced $40,000 24 years ago.

In reply, Cal Water argued that Nelson had failed to discount his claim due to litigation exposure and the substantial expense of pursuing the matter through hearings and beyond.

The Emmetts separately replied and explained that the Commission decisions did not determine that Nelson was entitled to the $40,000, only that Cal Water could apply for such a payment when water service was requested. As such, the proposed payment of $30,000 is a windfall to Nelson, rather than an unreasonably small sum.