5. Contribution to Resolution of Issues

Sierra Club states that it made a substantial contribution to this proceeding in two respects. First, Sierra Club argues that its Motion for Determination of Applicability of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) filed May 30, 2000, together with the Reply in Support of Motion of Sierra Club for Determination of the Applicability of CEQA filed July 14, 2000, resulted in this Commission's Interim Opinion, dated October 19, 2000, finding CEQA applicable to this proceeding, and directing Valencia to comply with CEQA requirements for environmental review (D.00-10-049). The Commission's Interim Opinion subsequently resulted in Valencia's preparation of its Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) in accordance with this Commission's regulations implementing CEQA. Sierra Club claims that Valencia's preparation of its PEA as a result of the Sierra Club's motion substantially assisted the Commission in addressing the merits of Valencia's Application for approval of its updated WMP.

However, Ventura preceded Sierra Club in raising these issues by filing its Motion on May 22, 2000.² Ventura also timely filed its Reply Brief in support of the motion, a week before Sierra Club filed its Reply Brief. Because Sierra Club's filings followed after Ventura's and pursued nearly identical issues, the time spent by Sierra Club on these filings did not result in a substantial contribution to D.00-10-049. However, Sierra Club's cross-examination on these issues during the evidentiary hearings was unique and resulted in a substantial contribution. We address our specific reduction in hours for the time that did not result in a substantial contribution below.

Second, Sierra Club states that its participation through submission of argument and evidence with regard to the potential cumulative watershed effects of the proposal by Valencia's parent corporation, Newhall Land and Farming Company, to construct a large residential development in the future, including its proposal to develop over 21,000 houses in its Newhall Ranch project, resulted in the Commission ruling that its approval of Valencia's WMP did not authorize the extension of water service to the proposed Newhall Ranch. The Commission directed that "[e]xtending service to large-scale future developments, such as those that may result from the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, will call for review of more current information, such as the 2000 UWMP or a future update to this WMP. If Valencia proposes to serve this development, it must file an application, an updated WMP and advice letter for such a project." (D.01-11-048 p. 35.) Sierra Club also raised several issues during the consideration of the WMP on which it did not prevail. However, the issues raised were useful to the Commission's consideration of the WMP and resulted in a more informed decision by the Commission. Therefore, all of Sierra Club's time associated with the hearings and briefings leading to D.01-11-048 made a substantial contribution.