Contingencies:	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies:
Contingencies:	Note 8 — Contingencies: *Barstow Perchlorate Contamination:* On March 8, 2013, the Company was served with four toxic tort lawsuits arising out of the November 19, 2010 detection of perchlorate in one of GSWC’s active production wells in the Barstow service area. The plaintiffs assert that they were affected by the perchlorate, claim negligence by GSWC and seek, among other things, punitive and compensatory damages. GSWC is the only named defendant in all four lawsuits. GSWC believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this time, management is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, resulting from these pending lawsuits, but does not believe a loss is probable. *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 analyses required for potential acquisition of the water system and allocated funds from its general reserve for such analyses. In November 2012, Claremont made an offer to acquire GSWC’s water system servicing Claremont. GSWC rejected the offer and informed the City that the system is not for sale. Claremont continues to express a desire to potentially take the system by eminent domain; however, Claremont and GSWC have 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 (“CMWD”) to purchase GSWC’s Ojai water system. In March 2013, the CMWD passed resolutions authorizing the establishment of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) and, among other things, authorized a special election for the purposes of levying a special tax via the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (“Mello-Roos Act”). The special tax would be used to provide funding for the potential acquisition of GSWC’s Ojai system by eminent domain. On March 26, 2013, GSWC filed a petition in the Superior Court, Ventura County which, among other things, challenges the CMWD’s ability to utilize the Mello-Roos Act to fund such action. At this time, GSWC is unable to predict the outcome of that petition. 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 and was approved by the courts in February 2008. Among other things, the settlement, which was also approved by the CPUC in May 2013, preserves GSWC’s historical pumping rights and secures 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. The court judgment also awarded GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties and 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 and the required filings will be made with the court in 2013. 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 from the ground 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 March 31, 2013, 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 March 31, 2013, 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.

Note 8 — Contingencies:

Barstow Perchlorate Contamination:

On March 8, 2013, the Company was served with four toxic tort lawsuits arising out of the November 19, 2010 detection of perchlorate in one of GSWC’s active production wells in the Barstow service area. The plaintiffs assert that they were affected by the perchlorate, claim negligence by GSWC and seek, among other things, punitive and compensatory damages. GSWC is the only named defendant in all four lawsuits. GSWC believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this time, management is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, resulting from these pending lawsuits, but does not believe a loss is probable.

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 analyses required for potential acquisition of the water system and allocated funds from its general reserve for such analyses. In November 2012, Claremont made an offer to acquire GSWC’s water system servicing Claremont. GSWC rejected the offer and informed the City that the system is not for sale. Claremont continues to express a desire to potentially take the system by eminent domain; however, Claremont and GSWC have 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 (“CMWD”) to purchase GSWC’s Ojai water system. In March 2013, the CMWD passed resolutions authorizing the establishment of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) and, among other things, authorized a special election for the purposes of levying a special tax via the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (“Mello-Roos Act”). The special tax would be used to provide funding for the potential acquisition of GSWC’s Ojai system by eminent domain. On March 26, 2013, GSWC filed a petition in the Superior Court, Ventura County which, among other things, challenges the CMWD’s ability to utilize the Mello-Roos Act to fund such action. At this time, GSWC is unable to predict the outcome of that petition. 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 and was approved by the courts in February 2008. Among other things, the settlement, which was also approved by the CPUC in May 2013, preserves GSWC’s historical pumping rights and secures 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.

The court judgment also awarded GSWC prescriptive rights to groundwater against the non-stipulating parties and 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 and the required filings will be made with the court in 2013. 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 from the ground 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 March 31, 2013, 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 March 31, 2013, 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.