This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Rate Challenges

San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Published: May 17, 2014 | Result Date: Apr. 24, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CPF-10-510830; CPF-12-512466 Bench Decision –  Mixed Verdict

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel S. Hentschke

John W. Keker
(Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)

Warren A. Braunig
(Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)

Daniel E. Jackson
(Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)

Daniel E. Purcell


Defendant

James J. Dragna
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

S. Raj Chatterjee

Sydney B. Bennion

John D. Schlotterbeck

James J. Brosnahan
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Marcia Scully

Heather C. Beatty

Colin C. West
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

Thomas S. Hixson


Facts

The San Diego County Water Authority filed suit against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, challenging the legality of four of the rates it set.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
San Diego argued that there were three primary defects in how the Metropolitan Water District set its rates. San Diego argued that the Water District improperly allocated the bulk of its costs, associated with its contract with the California Dept. of Water Resources' State Water Project, to the System Access Rate, and the System Power Rate. San Diego also argued that it illegally treated all of its costs for conservation and local water supply development programs as transportation costs.

Result

The court ruled in favor of San Diego on the first two issues, finding that the Metropolitan Water District violated Proposition 26 when calculating its transportation rates. However, the court found in favor of the Water District on the third issue, concluding that San Diego failed to show that dry year peaking issues exited, in which the Water District would improperly assign costs to other member agencies.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Sept. 10, 2012.


#97793

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390