2. Background

The procedural background of this complaint proceeding is set forth in detail in the companion decision and explains that Complainant Calone alleged that Defendant Point Arena Water Works, Inc., (PAWW) has violated numerous provisions of the Public Utilities Code and PAWW's tariffs in refusing to extend service to Complainant's residence.

Relevant to today's decision, PAWW explained in its answer that its water supply for the Whiskey Shoals service area is, and has been for some time, severely constrained. Based on information provided to the Commission's Division of Water and Audits, PAWW provides public utility water service to four of the 26 parcels in its Commission-designated Whiskey Shoals service area. These four customers initiated water service from PAWW in the 1970s, when the water supply was more plentiful. Since that time, PAWW has not initiated water service to new customers in its Whiskey Shoals service area. Of the remaining 22 unserved parcels, four have residences which rely on either their own wells or private storage tanks on the property for water service and one vacant parcel has a private well.

With the cooperation of PAWW, Complainant engaged the services of water supply engineers and hydrologists to prepare an independent assessment of the capacity of the Whiskey Shoals water system. The Commission's Division of Water and Audits reviewed the assessment.

On November 20, 2009, Complainant Calone moved for summary judgment contending that the record evidence demonstrated that PAWW had sufficient supply to provide service to at least one more customer and that it should be ordered to do so. In opposition, PAWW challenged Complainant's assertion that there are no disputed issues of material fact and contended that more recent measurements show the well production to be about 0.37 gallons/minute.

On January 19, 2010, the Presiding Officer issued a ruling denying the motion and concluding that, based on Division of Water and Audits' analysis, the existing Whiskey Shoals supply, one well, is unable to meet existing average daily demand, much less maximum daily demand:

	Well flow rate = 2 gallons/minute (Calone's Assertion)	Well flow rate = 0.37 gallons/minute (PAWW's Assertion)
Daily Supply Produced	2880 gallons/day	533 gallons/day
Average Daily1 Demand	580 gallons/day	580 gallons/day
Maximum Daily Demand2	1305 gallons/day	1305 gallons/day
Allow Another Connection?	Yes, average and maximum daily demand well exceeded with current supply.	No, average daily demand deficit of 47 gallons and maximum daily demand deficit of 725 gallons to serve current customers.

On December 3, 2009, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 09-12-013 extending the statutory deadline for resolving this proceeding to December 3, 2010.

Evidentiary hearings were held on February 24, 2010, but the parties then notified the Presiding Officer that they had reached a settlement and no further hearings were held. On March 11, 2010, the parties submitted their joint motion for approval of settlement agreement which was addressed in a companion Presiding Officer's Decision. On April 23, 2010, the Presiding Officer mailed her Presiding Officer's Decision addressing both the settlement agreement and the further water supply directives for PAWW. The issues were bifurcated and two revised Presiding Officer's Decisions mailed on May 20, 2010, which superseded in its entirety the April 23, 2010, Presiding Officer's Decision and separately addressed the settlement agreement³ and the water supply directives. Today's decision is limited to further water supply directives to PAWW.

¹ Average demand per connection is based on consumption from the existing four connections based on historic average consumption figures since 2004, which range between 109 and 210 gallons per day for peak month consumption for the year. The average for 2004 to 2008 is 145 gallons per day per connection for peak month consumption.

² Maximum daily demand at the existing four connections escalates estimated average demand by a factor of 2.25 pursuant to the definition in Section 64554 of Chapter 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

³ The Presiding Officer's Decision addressing the settlement agreement was not appealed, and it became D.10-06-027.