Discussion
We will first address the parties' responses to the sub-issues raised in the Scoping Memo.
1. What, if any, is the Commission's role here in
determining the water quality for the well?
This issue was not directly briefed by either party. The Commission has constitutional and statutory authority and responsibilities to ensure that regulated water utilities provide service (e.g., water) that protects the public health and safety. The clearest statement of the Commission's statutory authority is found at Pub. Util. Code § 739.8(a) which states: "Access to an adequate supply of healthful water is a basic necessity of human life, and shall be made available to all residents of California at an affordable cost." Further, Pub. Util. Code § 770 addresses water quality regulation and provides in pertinent part: "The commission may after hearing: [¶] . . . [¶] (b) Ascertain and fix adequate and serviceable standards for the measurement of . . . quality . . . or other condition pertaining to the supply of the product, commodity, or service furnished or rendered by any such public utility. No standard of the commission applicable to any water corporation shall be inconsistent with the regulations and standards of the State Department of [Public] Health pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116275) of Part 12 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code."
The California Supreme Court has found that:
While the water quality standards may be the product of [DPH] study and expertise, they are the [Commission] standards as well. The Legislature, by mandating that the [Commission] standards cannot be `inconsistent' with [DPH] water quality standards, has established that the [DPH] safety standards are the minimum standards for the [Commission] to use in performing its regulatory function of ensuring compliance with safety standards. (Hartwell v. Superior Court of Ventura County (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 256, 271).
In its brief, the Defendant asserts that DPH has been monitoring quality of the water from the well on the Complainant's property22 and states that the water quality issue is being addressed by DPH.23 We find no reason not to rely on DPH's oversight in this instance. Complainants' brief does not address this issue.
There is no triable issue of material fact regarding water quality.
2. Does the Commission have the authority
to order the sale of land and or grant of
an easement in a property dispute?
This issue was not directly briefed by the Complainants. In their brief Complainants allude to the fact that the Commission has "concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court24 but they do not address the issue raised in question #2 of the Scoping Memo. The Complainants' only response to this question was a cite to Pratt v. Coast Trucking25 arguing against the proposition that they cannot maintain an action in Superior Court and before the Commission on the same underlying facts.26 The issue raised in the scoping memo is not whether the Commission and the Superior Court can have concurrent jurisdiction over an issue (a position supported by Pratt) but does the Commission have jurisdiction over the sale of land and the granting of an easement.
In its brief Defendant acknowledges that the Commission has broad authority, which is quasi-judicial in nature, but asserts that the Commission does not have the authority to order the sale of land or grant easements in real property disputes.27 Citing several cases, Defendant argues that the Commission does not have the authority to settle property disputes between parties.28 Defendant contends that disputes between parties concerning property rights should be handled by the courts. Defendant asserts that the Commission is authorized to prevent the owner of a public utility from disposing of that utility's property where such disposition would be against the public interest. If the owner of a public utility does not desire to sell its property, even if there is an agreement to do so, the Commission cannot compel the sale.29
We conclude that the resolution of the property rights dispute in this matter is properly before the Superior Court.
3. Does the Commission have the authority to
order a party be reimbursed for legal fees?
In light of our conclusions concerning the parties' responses to questions 1 and 2 the instant question is moot.
4. If the answer to questions 2 and/or 3 is yes
should the Commission exercise its authority
prior to the culmination of the pending civil
action between the parties?
In light of our conclusions concerning the parties' responses to questions 1 and 2 the instant question is moot.
22 Defendant's Brief, § 4.1.
23 Id. at § 4.4.
24 Complainant's Opening Brief at 7 citing Pratt v. Coast Trucking.
25 228 Cal. App. 2d. 139.
26 Complainant's Opening Brief at 7.
27 Defendant's Brief at § 4.2.
28 Id. citing Kopenen v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 345.
29 Id. citing Hanlon v. Eshleman (1915) 169 Cal. 200, 146 P. 656.
