Comment on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Colbert in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No comments were received.

Mark J. Ferron is the assigned Commissioner and W. Anthony Colbert is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

1. Complainants are husband and wife and customers of record for the water service at 3015 West Lake Boulevard, Homewood, California.

2. Defendant is a Class C water utility (over 500 but les than 2,000 connections).

3. In 2005 the Complainants purchased a parcel on Westlake Boulevard in Homewood, California, the parcel was divided in two and a luxury home was built on each parcel.

4. One of the Complainants' parcels has been sold, the other parcel is still owned by the Complainants.

5. Defendant operates a well located on the parcel owned by Complainants.

6. The well serves over 100 customers.

7. Complainants assert that the well is located on their property without legal authorization.

8. Complainants allege that Defendant well contains corrosive water that is contaminated with lead.

9. Complainants demand that the Defendant be required to abandon its well.

10. Complainants have sued Defendant in Placer County Superior Court over the property rights issue related to the well.

11. Defendant has filed a counter-suit against Complainants in Placer County Superior Court over the property rights issue related to the well.

12. The California DPH has tested the water and determined that it is within acceptable guidelines for human consumption.

13. The Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling, in the instant proceeding, was issued on October 13, 2011.

14. The threshold question in this proceeding is whether the Complaint sets forth any issue(s) that are under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.

15. There were four sub-issues/questions in the Scoping Memo.

16. The Complainants' brief did not directly address the main question and sub-issues contained in the Scoping Memo.

17. Defendant has requested that the Complaint be dismissed.

18. There is no disputed or triable issue of material fact within the Commission's jurisdiction in this proceeding.

1. The property rights issues concerning the legality of the wells location is currently and properly under the jurisdiction of the Placer County Superior Court.

2. The issue of the water quality of the well is under the jurisdiction of the California DPH, which has tested the water and determined that it is within acceptable guidelines for human consumption.

3. There is no disputed or triable issue of material fact before and/or under the Commission's jurisdiction in this proceeding.

4. Hearings are not necessary.

5. Defendant's request to dismiss the Complaint will be treated as a Motion to Dismiss.

6. The Complaint against the Defendant should be dismissed, effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Complaint against Tahoe Park Water Company is dismissed.

2. The hearing determination is changed to no hearings necessary.

3. All Motions not previously ruled on are denied.

4. Case 11-03-020 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated July 12, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page