Parties' Contentions
In essence, Fisch argues that (1) her property, purchased in 1998, lies within Garrapata's service area and (2) the 1½-inch water line that traverses Garrapata Creek to provide water to her property is a water distribution main which Garrapata must maintain.4 As a consequence, Fisch contends that (3) the utility may not shut off water to her property for her failure to keep the water line in repair and (4) she is not liable for the $396.39 in repairs made on November 30, 1999.5 Though the complaint raises several other issues about utility management and service quality (e.g., "[t]he Utility is not sufficiently capitalized and competently managed to assure safe and reliable water for the customers of the Utility"), the scoping memo referred these issues to the recent GRC and they were addressed in that proceeding.
Garrapata admits that it has provided water service to the property since 1964. However, Garrapata asserts that the property is outside the service area (i.e., that water always has been provided as an extra-service territory accommodation) and at any event, that the water line at issue is not a water main but a private service line which Fisch must keep operable.
Though the utility now bills its customers in accordance with its flat rate tariff structure, each party claims that different meters on the water system establish the point of service. Fisch relies on the existence of a meter box north of Garrapata Creek near her house. Garrapata relies on its long-term use of a meter and shut off valve south of Garrapata Creek for detecting leaks in the water line (which lies to the north) and when necessary, cutting off the water supply to Fisch's property.
4 Ex.9, attached to this decision as Appendix A, illustrates the location of the water line at issue and the geographical orientation of Fisch's property. 5 Some $4,000 of repairs made in the spring of 2000 were paid by her realtor and are not at issue in this case.
