2. Background

In 1991, the District began a $7 million flood control project, expanding a number of levees in Bishop Tract. The project required relocation of PG&E's poles, electric lines and related facilities. Under protest, the District paid PG&E a total of $353,906.32 for the relocation work. The work was accomplished under a series of facilities agreements, the last of which was executed on April 6, 1992.

On June 15, 1993, the District filed this complaint seeking recovery of the relocation costs. After extensions of time were granted, PG&E timely filed its answer on October 4, 1993. Prehearing conferences were conducted on February 16, 1994, and June 7, 1994. A petition to intervene filed by Pacific Bell was granted, but participation by that utility was limited to the filing of briefs. After submission of prepared testimony, evidentiary hearings were conducted on February 14-17, 1995, and on February 24, 1995. The Commission heard testimony from 11 witnesses and received 42 exhibits into evidence. Briefs were filed on May 12, 1995, and reply briefs were filed on June 26, 1995. On May 9, 1997, the District moved to set aside submission and reopen the record to receive an appellate court decision that had just been issued.¹

For various reasons, including the unavailability of the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) for an extended period, the case has languished for some time. The parties on a number of occasions were asked if they would like to have the case reassigned to another ALJ, but counsel for the District and for PG&E declined. In January 2001, the Commission on its own motion reassigned the case. An ALJ Ruling on January 19, 2001 reopened the record and directed parties to state any material issues of fact or law that had arisen since the case was submitted in 1995.

Both parties responded to the ALJ Ruling on March 2, 2001. Each submitted declarations attesting to development of Bishop Tract lands since 1995. Each stated that no further hearings are required.