STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

March 9, 2001

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 00-03-017

This proceeding was filed on March 9, 2000, and is assigned to Commissioner Henry Duque and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jean Vieth. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Vieth.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

/s/ LYNN T. CAREW

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

LTC:hkr

ALJ/XJV-POD/hkr

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 3/9/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Carol Fisch, Complainant, vs. Garrapata Water Co., Inc., Defendant.

Case 00-03-017 (Filed March 9, 2000)

OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT

William B. Daniels, Attorney at Law, for Carol Fisch, complainant.

Donald M. Layne, Attorney at Law, for Garrapata Water Co., Inc., defendant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT 2

Summary 2

Procedural Background 2

Factual Background 3

Parties' Contentions 5

Preliminary Procedural Considerations 6

1. Presentation of Garrapata's Case 6

2. Garrapata's Exhibits 6

Discussion 11

1. Tariff Rule 16 11

2. The Service Area Boundary 11

3. Point of Delivery of Service 14

3.1 Fisch's Showing 14

3.2 Garrapata's Defense 15

3.3 An Equitable Resolution 16

Findings of Fact 23

Conclusions of Law 25

ORDER 27

Appendix A Exhibit 9

Appendix B Tariff Rule No. 16 (Excerpt)

OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT

Summary

We resolve the complaint filed by Carol Fisch (Fisch) against Garrapata Water Co., Inc. (Garrapata) by concluding that Fisch's property is within Garrapata's service area but that the water line spanning Garrapata Creek is nonstandard because it does not comply with the Tariff Rule 15 main extension requirements incorporated in Tariff Rule 16. We assign responsibility for outstanding and future repairs to the water line equally between Fisch and Garrapata. We conclude that neither law nor equity warrants imposing the cost of these repairs on Garrapata's remaining customers, however, and accordingly, we prohibit the utility from recovering its share of this cost from ratepayers. We direct Garrapata to prepare a preliminary study of the feasibility of extending its Highway 1 main across Garrapata Creek and to submit the study to the Commission's Water Division.