Contingencies:

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Contingencies:

Contingencies:

Note 9 — Contingencies:

Water Quality-Related Litigation:

Perchlorate and/or Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) have been detected in five wells servicing GSWC’s South San Gabriel System. GSWC filed suit in federal court, along with two other affected water purveyors and the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (“WQA”), against some of those allegedly responsible for the contamination of two of these wells. Some of the other potential defendants settled with GSWC, other water purveyors and the WQA (the “Water Entities”), on VOC related issues prior to the filing of the lawsuit. In response to the filing of the lawsuit, the Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit or strike certain portions of the suit. The judge issued a ruling on April 1, 2003 granting in part and denying in part the PRP’s motions. A key ruling of the court was that the water purveyors, including GSWC, by virtue of their ownership of wells contaminated with hazardous chemicals are themselves PRPs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

GSWC has, pursuant to permission of the court, amended its suit to claim certain affirmative defenses as an “innocent” party under CERCLA. Registrant is presently unable to predict the outcome of this ruling on its ability to fully recover from the PRPs, past and future costs associated with the treatment of these wells. In this same suit, the PRPs have filed cross-complaints against the Water Entities, the MWD, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and others on the theory that they arranged for and did transport contaminated water into the Main San Gabriel Basin for use by GSWC and the other two affected water purveyors and for other related claims.

On August 29, 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued Unilateral Administrative Orders (“UAO”) against 41 parties deemed responsible for polluting the groundwater in that portion of the San Gabriel Valley from which the two impacted GSWC wells draw water. GSWC was not named as a party to the UAO. The UAO requires these parties to remediate the contamination.

The judge in the lawsuit stayed the matter on October 12, 2004 in order to allow the parties to explore settlement and appointed a special master to oversee mandatory settlement discussions between the PRPs and the Water Entities. EPA has also conducted settlement discussions with several PRPs regarding the UAO. The Water Entities and EPA have worked closely to coordinate their settlement discussions under the auspices of the special master in order to arrive at a complete resolution of all issues affecting the lawsuit and the UAO. Settlements have been reached with some PRPs.

On March 28, 2011, the Court lifted the stay and the matter has proceeded in litigation. The EPA filed a separate complaint against the remaining PRPs and their matter was consolidated with those filed by the Water Entities.  In the EPA case, the remaining PRPs filed a cross-complaint against the Water Entities making the same basic allegations as in their already existing cross-complaint.  The cross complaint was filed on August 1, 2011.  Registrant believes the filing does not materially alter the structure and claims in the case.  GSWC will continue to work with EPA and the special master to reach settlement with all PRPs or proceed to trial.  Registrant is presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these settlement discussions.

Condemnation of Properties:

The laws of the State of California provide for the acquisition of public utility property by governmental agencies through their power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation, where doing so is necessary and in the public interest. In addition, these laws provide: (i) that the owner of utility property may contest whether the condemnation is actually necessary and in the public interest, and (ii) that the owner is entitled to receive the fair market value of its property if the property is ultimately taken.

The Town of Apple Valley (the “Town”) abandoned its activities related to a potential condemnation of GSWC’s water system serving the Town in 2007. However, in January 2011, the Town Council directed staff to update the previously prepared financial feasibility study for the acquisition of GSWC’s water systems.  GSWC’s Apply Valley water systems serve approximately 2,800 customers.

In April 2011, an organization called Ojai FLOW (Friends of Locally Owned Water) started a local campaign for the Casitas Municipal Water District to purchase GSWC’s Ojai water system.  The Ojai City Council passed a resolution supporting the efforts of Ojai FLOW at their regular meeting on April 26, 2011.  In May 2011, Ojai FLOW submitted a petition with over 1,800 signatures to the Casitas Municipal Water District supporting the recommended acquisition of GSWC’s Ojai water system.  The Casitas Municipal Water District’s Water Resources Committee is presently considering the proposal by Ojai FLOW. GSWC serves approximately 3,000 customers in Ojai.

Except for the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Ojai, Registrant is currently not involved in activities related to the potential condemnation of any of its water customer service areas or in its BVES customer service area. No formal condemnation proceedings have been filed against any of the Registrant’s service areas during the past three years.

Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Adjudication:

In 1997, the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District (“plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including GSWC, the City of Santa Maria, and several other public water purveyors. The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought an adjudication of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (the “Basin”). A stipulated settlement of the lawsuit has been reached, subject to CPUC approval.  The settlement, among other things, if approved by the CPUC, would preserve GSWC’s historical pumping rights and secure supplemental water rights for use in case of drought or other reductions in the natural yield of the Basin. GSWC, under the stipulation, has a right to 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater replenishment provided by the Twitchell Project, a storage and flood control reservoir project operated by the Santa Maria Valley Conservation District.  A monitoring and annual reporting program has been established to allow the parties to responsibly manage the Basin and to respond to shortage conditions.  If severe water shortage conditions are found over a period of five years, the management area engineer will make findings and recommendations to alleviate such shortages.  In the unlikely case that the Basin experiences severe shortage conditions, the court has the authority to limit GSWC’s groundwater production to 10,248 acre-feet per year, based on developed water in the Basin.  Over the last five years, GSWC’s average groundwater production has been 10,140 acre-feet per year.

On February 11, 2008, the court issued its final judgment, which approves and incorporates the stipulation.  The judgment awards GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties.  In addition, the judgment grants GSWC the right to use the Basin for temporary storage and to recapture 45 percent of the return flows that are generated from its importation of State Water Project water.  Pursuant to this judgment, the court retains jurisdiction over all of the parties to make supplemental orders or to amend the judgment as necessary.  On March 20, 2008, the non-stipulating parties filed notices of appeal.  In August 2010, the appellants filed their opening briefs.  Registrant is unable to predict the outcome of the appeal.

Aerojet Note Receivable:

Pursuant to the settlement agreement with Aerojet discussed in Note 2, GSWC has a note receivable which is scheduled to be paid by Aerojet in installments over five years beginning in December 2009.  GenCorp Inc. is the parent of Aerojet.  In January 2010, Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) upgraded GenCorp Inc’s credit rating to B- from CCC+ with a stable outlook.  This is a non-investment grade rating assigned by S&P to companies whose financial situation varies.  On March 26, 2010, Moody’s Investor Services (“Moody’s”) upgraded GenCorp Inc.’s rating from B3 to B2.  This is a non-investment grade rating assigned by Moody’s to obligations that are speculative and subject to high credit risk and of generally poor credit quality.

As of June 30, 2011, GSWC has received from Aerojet a total of $5.0 million including interest as payment of the first and second annual installments under the terms of the 2004 settlement agreement. As of June 30, 2011, the unpaid portion of the note receivable is $6.3 million, comprised of $4.8 million in principal and $1.5 million in accrued interest. At this time, management believes the note receivable from Aerojet is fully collectible and has not provided a reserve for uncollectible amounts as of June 30, 2011.  GSWC will continue to assess recoverability of this note receivable.

Environmental Clean-Up and Remediation:

Chadron Plant: GSWC has been involved in environmental remediation and clean-up at a plant site (“Chadron Plant”) that contained an underground storage tank which was used to store gasoline for its vehicles. This tank was removed in July 1990 along with the dispenser and ancillary piping. Since then, GSWC has been involved in various remediation activities at this site.  Recent site assessments have been conducted which showed that there was more gasoline at higher concentrations spread over a larger area than previously measured. Remediation is estimated to take two more years, followed by at least one year of monitoring and reporting.  As of June 30, 2011, the total spent to clean-up and remediate GSWC’s plant facility is approximately $3.5 million, of which $1.5 million has been paid by the State of California Underground Storage Tank Fund. Amounts paid by GSWC have been included in rate base and approved by the CPUC for recovery.

As of June 30, 2011, GSWC has an accrued liability for the estimated additional cost of $1.2 million to complete the clean-up at the site. The ultimate cost may vary as there are many unknowns in remediation of underground gasoline spills and this is an estimate based on currently available information. Management also believes it is probable that the estimated additional costs will be approved in rate base by the CPUC.

Other Litigation:

Registrant is also subject to other ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Management believes that rate recovery, proper insurance coverage and reserves are in place to insure against property, general liability and workers’ compensation claims incurred in the ordinary course of business. Registrant is unable to predict an estimate of the loss, if any, resulting from any pending suits or administrative proceedings.