Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Contingencies
Contingencies	Note 14 - Contingencies *Water Quality-Related Litigation: Perchlorate and/or Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) have been detected in certain 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, together known as the “Water Entities”, against some of those allegedly Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRP”). In August 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued Unilateral Administrative Orders (“UAO”) against 41 PRPs for polluting the groundwater in portions of the San Gabriel Valley from which those impacted GSWC wells draw water. The UAO requires these parties to remediate the contamination. In October 2004, the judge in the lawsuit stayed the matter 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. The Water Entities have now successfully reached settlement with all the PRPs. Legal proceedings are currently in progress to enter the settlements and resolve the claims. 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 City of Claremont (“Claremont”) located in GSWC’s Region III, has expressed various concerns to GSWC about rates charged by GSWC and the effectiveness of the CPUC’s rate-setting procedures. In January 2012, the Claremont City council members directed staff to pursue analysis required for potential acquisition of the water system and allocated funds from its general reserve for such analysis. In November 2012, Claremont made an offer to acquire GSWC’s water system servicing Claremont. GSWC rejected the offer and clarified that the system is not for sale. Claremont and GSWC have however, agreed to hold meetings to further discuss alternatives, rates and other concerns of the City. GSWC serves approximately 11,000 customers in Claremont. 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 in April 2011. In July 2012, the Casitas Municipal Water District (“CMWD”) hired a financial consultant to provide consulting services to the District for the establishment of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) and the issuance of bonds within the CFD to provide funding for the potential acquisition of GSWC’s Ojai system. In January 2013, the CMWD passed resolutions to: (i) approve Local Goals and Policies for Use of Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, and (ii) make a Declaration of Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 (Ojai) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein. With this action, CMWD will be allowed to hold a public hearing, and at the close of the hearing, establish the CFD. The public hearing is expected in March 2013. GSWC serves approximately 3,000 customers in Ojai. Except for the City of Claremont 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 plaintiff. 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. If 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. In February 2008, the court issued its final judgment, which approved and incorporated the stipulation. The judgment awarded GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties. In addition, the judgment granted 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 retained jurisdiction over all of the parties to make supplemental orders or to amend the judgment as necessary. In March 2008, the non-stipulating parties filed notices of appeal. In November 2012, the Appellate Court upheld the Santa Maria judgment, with a remand to the trial court to clarify the narrow issue that non-stipulating parties retained their overlying rights. There is no dispute on this clarification. In December 2012, the Appellate Court further modified the decision clarifying the basis for the overdraft finding that precipitated the prescriptive right finding. In December 2012, the non-stipulating parties filed a request with the California Supreme Court for a review of the Appellate Court findings. In February 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the parties’ request for review of the Appellate Court findings. 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. After many years of remediation activities, management believes that the majority of the leaked gasoline product has been removed. However, a sheen of gasoline still remains at the top of the groundwater. Additional groundwater remediation will be required before further soil remediation can be commenced. Management at this time cannot estimate when additional soil remediation will commence, due to the persistence of gasoline product in the groundwater. As of December 31, 2012, the total spent to clean-up and remediate GSWC’s plant facility was 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 December 31, 2012, 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 and has recorded a corresponding regulatory asset. 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, professional and 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, but does not believe the impact, if any, would be material.

Note 14 - Contingencies

Water Quality-Related Litigation:

Perchlorate and/or Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) have been detected in certain 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, together known as the “Water Entities”, against some of those allegedly Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRP”). In August 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued Unilateral Administrative Orders (“UAO”) against 41 PRPs for polluting the groundwater in portions of the San Gabriel Valley from which those impacted GSWC wells draw water. The UAO requires these parties to remediate the contamination.

In October 2004, the judge in the lawsuit stayed the matter 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. The Water Entities have now successfully reached settlement with all the PRPs. Legal proceedings are currently in progress to enter the settlements and resolve the claims.

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 City of Claremont (“Claremont”) located in GSWC’s Region III, has expressed various concerns to GSWC about rates charged by GSWC and the effectiveness of the CPUC’s rate-setting procedures. In January 2012, the Claremont City council members directed staff to pursue analysis required for potential acquisition of the water system and allocated funds from its general reserve for such analysis. In November 2012, Claremont made an offer to acquire GSWC’s water system servicing Claremont. GSWC rejected the offer and clarified that the system is not for sale. Claremont and GSWC have however, agreed to hold meetings to further discuss alternatives, rates and other concerns of the City. GSWC serves approximately 11,000 customers in Claremont.

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 in April 2011. In July 2012, the Casitas Municipal Water District (“CMWD”) hired a financial consultant to provide consulting services to the District for the establishment of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) and the issuance of bonds within the CFD to provide funding for the potential acquisition of GSWC’s Ojai system. In January 2013, the CMWD passed resolutions to: (i) approve Local Goals and Policies for Use of Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, and (ii) make a Declaration of Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 (Ojai) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein. With this action, CMWD will be allowed to hold a public hearing, and at the close of the hearing, establish the CFD. The public hearing is expected in March 2013. GSWC serves approximately 3,000 customers in Ojai.

Except for the City of Claremont 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 plaintiff. 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. If 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.

In February 2008, the court issued its final judgment, which approved and incorporated the stipulation. The judgment awarded GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties. In addition, the judgment granted 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 retained jurisdiction over all of the parties to make supplemental orders or to amend the judgment as necessary. In March 2008, the non-stipulating parties filed notices of appeal. In November 2012, the Appellate Court upheld the Santa Maria judgment, with a remand to the trial court to clarify the narrow issue that non-stipulating parties retained their overlying rights. There is no dispute on this clarification. In December 2012, the Appellate Court further modified the decision clarifying the basis for the overdraft finding that precipitated the prescriptive right finding. In December 2012, the non-stipulating parties filed a request with the California Supreme Court for a review of the Appellate Court findings. In February 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the parties’ request for review of the Appellate Court findings.

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. After many years of remediation activities, management believes that the majority of the leaked gasoline product has been removed. However, a sheen of gasoline still remains at the top of the groundwater. Additional groundwater remediation will be required before further soil remediation can be commenced. Management at this time cannot estimate when additional soil remediation will commence, due to the persistence of gasoline product in the groundwater. As of December 31, 2012, the total spent to clean-up and remediate GSWC’s plant facility was 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 December 31, 2012, 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 and has recorded a corresponding regulatory asset.

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, professional and 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, but does not believe the impact, if any, would be material.