Complaint,Petition: IN RE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-02-2014 9:32 am

Case Number: CPF-14-514004
Filing Date: Dec-02-2014 8:59
Filed by: TJ MOROHOSHI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04707502
PETITION .

IN RE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

001004707502

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.3

00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX nrsBereoo NATIONWIDE, LEGAL
=

x FILED
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
- SUPERIOR COURT
Lee EA MAS TTONNEY (Meme, Siete Bar number, end adress}: DEC - 2 2014 Foncounr uss ony
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Batery Street 20U8Ipe, MILED
Son Trane no: (413) 391-5400 ennvo: (415) 3 DEPOT HY of se Call
TELEPHONE NO.: Ms
[ATTORNEY FOR : Ctiloner and Plaintiff San Diego Co Angeles
|suPeRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, couNTY oF LOS ANGELES MAY 3 920
street aooress: 111 North Hill Street < 9 2014
MAILING ADDRESS: : Sherri R. Carter,
‘rr AND 2 Cone: Los An cles, CA 90012 By, ve Officer/Clerk
BRANCH NAME: S osk Courthouse Cristina G Deputy
CASENAME: nia
San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District, et al. .
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASEMIMBER:
Unioied CJ Lined §— | counter, CI soitor = |B SA713.9 |
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance.by defendant Gp 4 5 14 0 0 4
exceeds $25,000) _ $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Fr 1

items 46 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
ft. Cec one box below forthe case type that best describes tis case:
Auto Tort .
Auto (22) a:
(2) uninsured motorist (46)
Other PUPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property

Provistonally Complex Civil Litigation
{Cal, Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) ©

J ntirusy rede reguistion (03)
Construction defect (10)

: Cs Breach of contractwarranty (06)
C1 Rule 3.740 cotections (09)
Other collections (09)

DamageMWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Mase tort (40)
LJ Asbestos (04) 2) other contract (37) ‘Securities itigation (28)
~ [1 Prodite tabitiy (24) Real Property LJ environmentavToxic tort (30)
TJ Medical malpractice (48) [1 Eminent domainvinerse Insurance claims arising from the
1 other pupowvn (23) ‘condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort 2) wrongtut eviction (33) types (41)
Business lortnfair business practica (07) L_] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
J civil sights (08) awful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20)
4 _Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellanoous Civil Complaint
“Fraud (16) CE) Residentiat (32) C ricoen:
+ Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) (I other comptaint (not spectiod above) (42)
Professional negligence (25) dudicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition.
{J other non-PuPOMD tort (35) Asset forfellure (05) [J Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Pelion re: arbitration award (11) [—] other petition (not specified above) (43)

() wit ot mandate (02)
(} other employment (15) [¥]_otner judicial review (38)

‘Wrongful termination (36)

2. Thiscase CJis [2Jisnot complex under rule 3,400 ofthe Caforria Rises of Court. If tho cate ie complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

NZ
ZS

a. C1 Large number of separately fepresented parties

b._) Extensive motion practice raising difficutt or novel
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve

c. (J Substantial amount of documentary evidence

Remedies sought (check ail that apply): a7]

This case isnot aclass action suit.

Os
-6. lf there are any known related cases, fle and serve a notice of related
Bowe i, May 30,2014

TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

6.1 Large number of witnesses

e. (_) Coordination with related actions pending In one or more courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

#. [[) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

b.[Z] nonmonetary; declaratory of injunctive relief ¢.Clpunive

Number of causes of action (specify): 4: Writ of Mandate; decl. relief; determin. of invalidity; breach of contract

Js other parties to the action or proceeding.

Je wsennnanavmmrmateerore
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ('

in sanctions.
1° Fue this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. .
I". If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. HTT ore tt, you must serve 8 copy ofthis cover sheet on al

« Uniese this s'a colactions case under rule 3,740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes:

(except smaill claims cases or cases filed
'. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result

“gaemaena”

+ ‘Cuot0 fev, Judy 1, 2007)

ORIGINAL -

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

(Cat, Rides of Court, ndes 2.30, 2.220, 3400-3.409, 3.740:
"Gab Slanderds of Jule! Admbnsiraion, si. 3.40: “% 8g

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-O10
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must

To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A ‘collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction.in
which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of
attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. :

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. {f a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that

the case is complex. Co CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES .
Auto T Contract Provistonally Comptex Civil Litigation (Cal.
‘Auto (22}-Personal Injury/Property Breach of ContractWarranty (08) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
DamageWrongfil Breach of RentaLease ‘AnliusVTrade Regutation (03)
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unlawful deteiner Construction Defect (10)
‘case involves an or wrongtul Claims involving Mass Tort (40)
‘motorist claim subject to ContracyWarranly BreachSeller ares Ligation (28)
arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) oxic Tort (30)
Instead of Auto) ‘Negligent Breach of Contract ura Coverage Cian
‘Other PUPDIWD (Personal injury! Warranty . ___ fatising from provisionally
‘DamageWrongful Death Other Breach of ContracuWarranty case type listed above) (41
Froperty ut Both) Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement a iudgment
‘Asbestos (04) ‘book accounts) Enforcement of Judgment (20)
‘Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case—Seller Pialnift Abstract of Judgment (Cut of
Asbestos Personal Injury? Other Promissory Note/Collections :
‘Wrongful Death insurance Sverage (ret ao Confession of kudgmet (nor
ee to complex) (18) Sister State Judgment
Medical Malpractice (4 Subr ‘Administrative Agency Award
Medical Malpractice— ‘Other Coverage (not taxes)
Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) PetioniCertitication of Enty of
‘Other Professional Health Care ‘Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpald Taxes:
Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment
One ems Lsky nein Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
‘and fall) (9.80 Condemnation (14) RICO (27)
Intentional Bodlly tnjury/PDAWD Wrongful Eviction (33) . Other Complaint (not speci
(e.9., assault, vandalism) Other Real 9. quiet tt
Intertosa teton of ital Possession oi Reel Provety Pastas Retet Ou
‘Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure tne eet (on
Negligent Infliction of : - Quiet Tite Mechanics Lien
Other : inet Real Property (not eratent mec Commeril Complaht
UPDIWO (Other) Tort ) Other
Business ao Business: ‘Untawtul raat) “ ¢ Civil Complaint
1 civil Rights (0.9. discrimination, Residential (32) a nh nd Comorte
~~ Ferasamen Ott Ge Shock ts tem; obenwae, one nee 2)
{ig Defamation (e.g., slander, bel) report as Commercial or Residential) ‘sbove) (43)
@ smo ee sel Pere ca
rf
Property (19) Paton Ne Arbivalon Award (11) oe ee oe ae
*. Professional Negligence Whit of Mandate (02) idee Dependent
‘Legal Malpractice ‘Wit Mandamus Election Contest
be nae ofesionat Meececton Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court ‘or Name
: or Case Matter pewter .
© owner Non-PUPDIWD Tort (35) Whit-Other Limited Court Case Petco oe romiate
PEmployment Review Other Civil Petition

‘Wrongful Termination (36)
fo Other Employment (15)

Notice of Appeal-Labor
‘Commissioner Appeals

‘CuOTO Rev. duly 1, 2007)

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEETbe .

00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX nly. NATIONWIDE LEGAL g

SOFT ITE «sr Diego Cnty: Water Auth, v. Metropolitan Water Dstict, ata. |" BC5 47199

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND
‘STATEMENT OF LOCATION
(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)

‘This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in.all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Item |. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: °
wurytriat? CJ ves cuassaction? L] ves ummepcaser Clves TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 10__C] HOURS) @] Days

Item I. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps — If you checked “Limited Case", skip to Item Ill, Pg. 4):

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your
case in'the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.

Step 2: Check one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.
Step 3: ‘In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have

checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0.
| Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) =]

1. Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central “6. Location of or permanently garaged vehicle.
: 3 Gey be flcd iv contal (iver county or Ho bodly inuyypropery samage).” 7. Localon where sides.
i 5 Weapenhere caute sracion ase, 208). 8: Location se eenatemercies
: & Location where body , death of dam Je occurred. 9. Location where ane or more of reside.

3. Location where performant lant resides. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner

* puto (22) 1D A700 Motor Vehicte - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1,24.

“Uninsured Motorist (46) "| 7110 Personal Injury/Property DamageMrongful Death — Uninsured Motorist | 1.,2., 4.

{
i

' Cl A8070 Asbestos. Damage 2.
oO. - Asbestos (04) Property Lo :
5 _ [© A721. Asbestos - Personal injuryiirongtl Death 2
‘H Product Liablty (24) | C7260 Product Llabiliy (not asbesios or toxic/envionmental) —” 1.,.24.94408
oo
we 3 suedcal apeacue as) |. 47210 Medal Mapratn-Pyscns & Surgeons 1.4,
c= C1 A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice 1.4,
| gs -
| 3 = 1 A7260 Premises Liablity (e.g., sip and fal) tas.
ha? Persone! jury © A7290 hntenonel Bly InuryPropery Oamapenirongh Death (9. a
a 5 Property Damaye assault, vandalism, etc.) .
: i atl Death 1 A7270_ Intentional infction of Emotional Distress 1.3.
b . A720 Other Personal injuryProperty Damage/Mrongtul Death ta: .
——————E—
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11). CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM " _ Lovat Rule 2.0

LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4

ORIGINAL

BY FAX‘SHORT TITLE:

‘San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metropolitan Water District, et al.

Ctill Case Cover Sheet Hori
} .°.“Category:No. we heck only one).
J Business Tort (07) 1- A6029 Other CommerclavBusiness Tort (not fraud/oreach of contract)
E Civil Rights (08) 1 A600 Civil Righis/Discrimination 44,243,
£3 Defamation (13) 1D AGO10 Defamation (slanderfibe!) 4.2.8
5
a Fraud (16) 1D 6013 Fraud (no contract)
. , : (an [2 M017 Lege Matprocice
P| Professional Negiigence 25) | peos0 other Professional Malpractice (not medicel or legal) 14248,
Other (35) 11 A6025 Other Non-Personsl Injury/Property Damage tort 2.3.
= ——. >
E ‘Wrongful Termination (36) | 1 A6037 Wrongf Termination 1.243,
é a 2
: ner Employment (16) ‘46024. Other Employment Complaint Case 4.248,
per 1D A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals. 10.
: 1 AB004 Breach of Rena ease Conrat (notuniawh detainer ar wrongid = | >
Breach of Consney Warranty | g008 ContraclWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraudinegligence)
(not insurance) 0 A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractWarranty (no fraud)
. 1D 46028 Other Breach of ContractWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
E . 1 A602 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2.,8..6.
: Collections (09) .
3 ° 1D A8012 Other Promissory Note/Collectlons Case 2...
Insurance Coverage (18) | C1 A8015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.24.68,
. 1 ‘A6009 Contractual Fraud 1424348.
Other Contract (37) | AG031. Tortus Interference 1.24948.
(2 8027 Other Contract Dispute(not breachvineurancertrauidinegligence) 4.,.24908.
a © _A7300 Eminent DomalvCondemnation Number of parcels___. | 2._
i Wrongful Eviction (33) | A6023. Wrongful Eviction Case 2.6.
9 3 © A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 8.
ul Other Real Property (26) ] 1 A6032 Quiet Tite . 8.
" 1 A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/ener,forecosure) | 2.,6.
fa =
Os Uniawaus Detar Commercial 1 6021 Untawful Detziner-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2,8.
“ i Uniewtul Detsons Roskteatat 2 A6020. Unlawful Detalner-Residential not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2.6.
he
oS 3 puiniawtuDatainer |_| C1 AB020F Unlawiul Detalner-Posl-Foreclosure 2.6.
5
Uniawhut Detalner-Drugs (38) | (A602 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs, 2.6.
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0
LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION | Page 2 of 4Le

_

=

00/00/2014

10:23:30 FAX 213

90

NATIONWIDE LEGAL 8

San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metropolitan Water District, et al.

‘asset Forfeltuce (05)° [2 A618 Asset Forfellure Case
Petition re Arbitration (11) | AB11S Pelition to CompeliConfirm/Vacaite Arbitration 2,8.
1 AS151 Wiit- Administrative Mandamus 2,8.
Writ of Mandate (02) DB AG182 Wit - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2
1D A6163. Wai - Other Limited Court Case Review 2°
Other Judicial Review (38) 6150 “ther Wit Judicial Review 2.8.
=
“anttrust Trade Reguiation (03) | Ag00S ‘Anthrust/Trade Regutation 4,28.
J, construction Detect (10) | 0 ‘8007 Construction Defect oe 1.,.2,3.
aims ivohing Mass To A606 ‘Claims tnvolving Mass Tort 4.2.8,
~ Securities Ligation (28) ] 0 A035 Seourtles Litigation Case
rose Toe 30) 1D A8038 Toxic TorvEnvironmental
insurance Coverage Claims CoveragerSubrogatton i .
from Complex Case (41) G A604, Insurance (complex case only) 8.
TD ABI41 Sister State Judgment 2,9.
(D AS160 Abstract of Judgment 2.6.
Enforcement 1B A810? Confession of udgent (ron-lomestic relations) 2.9.
of Judginent (20) 0 A8140 ‘Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2.8.
OB. As114 Pettlon’Certifcate for Enty of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2.;8.

OD ABII2 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case

0 ABt13

Partnership and Corporate Governance Case

1D A6121 Civil Harassment
1D A6123. Workplace Harassment

LASC Approved 03-04

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

oe

: i omer D A6124 Elder/Dependent Aduit Abuse Case

“BS: (Not Specified Above) | A8100 Election Contest 2

we (43) 1D _AB110 Petition for Change of Name 2,7.

oe 1D A6170 Pettion for Relief from Late Claim Law 2 Bud Be

eo 10 A6100 Other Civil Petition 2,9.

& .

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM ‘Local Rule 2.0
Page 3 of 4Sy

‘SHORT TH CASE NUMBER

me San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metropolitan Water District, et al.

Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other

circumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected,

ADDRESS:

REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown | The Metropoltan Waler Distt of S them Calfomia
under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for 700 N. Amede Stent, ~

this case. Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
01. @2. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 28, O89. 040. .

om: STATE: 2 Cove:

Item IV. Declaration of Assignment. | dectare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true

and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk courthouse In, the
Sentral __ istrict of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., § 392 et seq., and Local

Rule 2.0, subds. (b), (c) and (d)).

Dated: May 30, 2014 : . Wi
May 30,2014

. (SIGNAYGRE OF ATTORNEVIFILING PARTY)

PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY
COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: : .

1. Original Complaint or Petition.

2. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk,
3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010,
4.

Swit eee Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. .

Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

6. Assigned order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form ClV-010, if the Plaintiff or petitioner is a
minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.

® 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum
uw must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

mn

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0
LASC Approved 03-04 : AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4FILED
ANCISCO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO COU

P g

SUPERIOR CO SUM-100
SUMMONS ron ony
(CITACION JUDICIAMEC -2 2014 PIERO
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: . °
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CLER:

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHER
INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL

2015 AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

from L.
‘There are other requirements. You may want to call an right away. If you do not know an /, You may want to call an att

wot ac ago ee. mye enol creed eer money

www.

‘en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
ircesencontar estos formularias dela corte y més informacion on ol Cantro de Ayuda de las Cortes 09 Calm fwnnu.sucorees yee ee

|_pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
‘The name and address of the court is: CASE MBER
I nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): (ier
Gromrey °° BC547139

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

411 North Hil Street CPF-14-514004
Los Angeles, CA 90012

The name, address, and telephone number of Plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: .

{El nombre, fa direccién y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, @s):

John W. Keker

Keker & Van Nest LLP

633 Battery Street. ee wet
Sa ci 94114 (415) 397-7188 Uu
oxi 30 td " “4 ¢Clerk, bys , Deputy
{fecha) : - -{Secretérioy ~~ (Adjunto)
{For Broo! of service ofthis si use Proof of Service of Summons (farm POS-010),J .

prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof bf Service ef Summons. 10).

Fea NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: *You ixé séived

Ve as an individual defendant.” .-
'2- ' [Vas the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
| 3. “Lor behait of (specify):
under: — [] CCP 416.10 (corporation) DI cep 416.60 (minor)
LL CoP 416.20 (defunct corporation) LI CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
LI CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) — ] CCP 416,90 (authorized person)
Ui other (specify):
4. (by personal delivery on (date):
Page tot,
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS ine. ‘Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465.
Reet Cenetot Catania we Fermsteron con ‘ore courte ca.gov

ORIGINAL00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX a 990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 3

: @ «Feo ®
oe SAN FRANCISCO COUNT.

SUPERIOR COURT

, : OEC -2 2014
1|| KEKER & VAN NEST LLP fp /___ EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092 - oF Te BSB. CODE § 6103] "
2]] jkeker@kvn.com - p PUTY .
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
3{| dpurcell@kvn.com Kn?
DAN JACKSON - #216091 , .
4 jackson@kvn.com . .
”ARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 superioftL-ED
5 || whraunig@kvn.com . ener Court of California
Ga Bate Stoee - o nly of Los Angeles
6|| San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 MAY 3 0 201
Telephone: (415) 391-5400 . oo,
7|| Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 SheriR. Carter, Executive OficenCle
. By.
8{| DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE - #76749 . Cristina Grjante = DePuy
General Counsel
“9|| SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

Ss

4677 Overland Avenue 33 veh, C Q . a
an Diego, CA 92123-12 her Ke
Telephone: (858) 522-6791 wv Q
11|| Facsimile: (858) 522-6566 a .

12|| Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff A x .
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY * B :

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGBIES.

16 . BC5471389 :
SANDIEGO COUNTY WATER - _ ‘|. Case No.
17]| AUTHORITY, : GP -14-51400)4.
: - san prec Bounry wares
18 Petitioner and Plaintiff, AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT
_ | OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
19 oy, DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY,
DAMAGES AND DECLARATOR'

20 ||. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 0 RELIEF .
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL :

21)! PERSONS INTERESTED INTHE.

VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED

& 22! BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER
wi DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

23 |] ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE
~ JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1,
3 241) .2016; and DOES 1-10,
@ 2s Respondents and Defendants.
N26 — :
Q a
bp
fu 28

, _ SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FQR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

ORIGINAL00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 2152090 \NATIONWIDE LEGAL eG

827920

2m A DA HW zw Ww

40

@ : e

Petitioner San Diego County Water Authority (“Petitioner” or “Water Authority”) brings
this Petition for Writ of Mandate, and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and
Declaratory Relief (“Complaint”), alleging as follows:

: , 1 INTRODUCTION

1, "The Water Authority brings this action for a writ of. mandate, declaratory
judgment, and determination of invalidity, challenging rates:adopted by Respondent and
Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”) on April 8, 2014
to be effective January 1, 2015. and January 1, 2016, The Water Authority also brings an
independent claii for breach of a contract between Metropolitan and the Water Authority.

2. This complaint is a continuation of pending litigation between the Water Authority
and Metropolitan, which includes two previously-filed (and now partially-decided) cases, San
Diego County Water Authority v Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al., Case
No. CPF-10-510830 (the “2010 case”) and San Diego County Water Authority v Metropolitan
Water District of. ‘Southern California et al,, Case No. CPF-12-512466 (the “2012 case”)
(collectively, the “2010 and 2012 Cases”), both pending in San Francisco Superior Court. In both
those earlier cases and this case, the same plaintiff (the Water Authority) is challenging the same
unlawful water rates set by the same defendant (Metropolitan) using the same cast-allocation
methodology and purportedly justified by the same, or very similar, facts and documentary
administrative record. The 2010 case challenged Metropolitan’s rates for calendar years 2011
aiid 2012, while the 2012 case challenged Metropolitan's rates for calendar years 2013 and 2014.
On April 24, 2014, the Honorable Curtis E.A. Karnow entered a final Statement of Decision in
the 2010 arid 2012 Cases invalidating four of Metropolitan's rates—the System Access Rate,
System Power Rate, Water Stewardship Rate, and wheeling rate—for each of calendar years
2011-2014, because they violate cost-of-service requirements imposed by the California
Constitution, California statutory law and the common law. (A copy of the Statement of Decision ‘

is attached hereto as Exhibit A),

3. This case challenges the same four rates, which Metropolitan has again imposed
for calendar years 2015 and 2016, using the same cost-allocation methodology the San Francisco
1. .

SAN DIEGO GOUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 210930 NATIONWIDE LEGAL eG

827920

= os

Oo 2 IN A WwW a wD

Superior Court has held was unlawful in the 2010 and 2012 Cases. The Water Authority will
seek to transfer this new case to San Francisco, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 394, and to
have the case coordinated, for case management purposes, with the 2010 and 2012 Cases, which,
as discussed above, are factually and legally nearly identical to this case.

4. The Water Authority is one of Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies and is
Metropolitan’s single largest customer, purchasing more than 250,000 acre-feet of water supply
annually from Metropolitan. The Water Authority, however, is unique among Metropolitan’s
member agencies in that it both purchases a very large, steady volume of water from
Metropolitan, year in and year out, and also pays Metropolitan to transport more than 180,000
acre-feet per year of water purchased from third party sources, In particular, the Water Authority
purchases conserved Colorado River water from the Imperial Irrigation Distiiet (“IID Water”).
The Water Authority has also obtained conserved water from the lining of the All American and ,
Coachella Canals (“Canal Lining Water”). To transport this IID and Canal Lining Water to its _
facilities, the Water Authority entered into an agreement with Metropolitan, the 2003 Amended
and Restated Agreement for the Exchange of Water (“Exchange Agreeinent”), under which the
Water Authority pays Metropolitan to transport the water to the Water Authority. (A copy of the
Exchange Agreemient is attached hereto as Exhibit B).

5. Metropolitan is obligated by statute, the California Constitution, and common law
to set rates that do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the particular service for which

“the rate is charged, and that are equitable, fair and non-discriminatory. The Exchange Agreement

separately requires Metropolitan to set a Price for transportation of the Water Authority’s
purchased IID and Canal ‘Lining Water that “shall be equal to the charge or charges set by
Metropolitan’s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable law and regulation and generally
applicable to the conveyance of water by Metropolitan.on behalf of its member agencies.”

6. : , On April 8, 2014, Metropolitan adopted rates to be charged for calendar years
2015 and 2016. As used in this Complaint, the term “rates” includes all rates and other levies,
charges, fees, or exactions for the sale of water or provision of services by Metropolitan to its
member public agencies. The rates challenged here violate common law, California statutory law

2

‘SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEFeC em A AH BR ww

~
So

11

. 00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 219990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 3

and the California Constitution. Metropolitan also has breached the Exchange Agreement with /
the Water Authority by setting a Price for the transportation of water that: violates California law
and thus constitutes a breach of the express terms of the Exchange Agreement.

7. _- Metropolitan’s rates violate the California Constitution, California statutory law,

and the coinmon law in multiple ways.

8. First, Metropolitan has allocated the costs of obtaining an’ imported water supply
to the rates it charges for “transportation.” Metropolitan purchases about half of the water supply

“it sells to its member agencies from the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”),

pursuant to a long-term, “take-or-pay” water supply contract that requires Metropolitan to pay a :
fixed amount per year regardless of how much water DWR is able to deliver to Metropolitan,
Metropolitan does not own or operate facilities to transport this water; instead, DWR transports
the water to Metropolitan’s delivery points and facilities via DWR’s state-owned State Water .
Project facilities. In other words, the money Metropolitan pays to DWR is to obtain a water
supply that ‘Metropolitan then sells to its member agency customers. Despite this, Metropolitan
misallocates most of these supply costs to two of its own “transportation” rates, specifically, the
System Access Rate and System Power Rate. As a result, the Price Metropolitan charges to the .
Water ‘Authority for delivery of the IID Water and Canal Lining Water—which Metropolitan
accomplishes ‘using only Metropolitan-owned pipelines and facilities—includes the completely
unrelated costs Metropolitan incurs when it purchases water from DWR. :
9. Second, Metropolitan improperly and illegally allocates 100% of its costs for
conservation and local water supply projects to transportation by recovering them through the
Water Stewardship Rate. The Water Stewardship Rate funds subsidy payments by Metropolitan
to member agencies—except the Water Authority, which Metropolitan has barred from receiving ,
benefits—to develop their own Jocal water supplies. Metropolitan has failed to establish that’
these local water supply costs are caused by the transportation of water, or are properly allocated
to transportation. Nevertheless, Metropolitan ‘charges its Water Stewardship Rate on the Water
Authority’s transportation of IID and Canal Lining Water. Metropolitan’s ‘misallocation of these
supply costs to transportation penalizes the Water Authority and subsidizes water supply costs in
3

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 21990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 3

PTSE- Be" Se

TO we IAA HW Rh wD.

10

_benefits of Metropolitan’s standby service accrue disproportionally—while some member

_from Metropolitan can vary by as much as 250,000 acre-feet from one year to the next, depending

- The result, once more, is a subsidy to a handful of member agencies, paid at the expense of steady

‘in the remainder of this Complaint.

two ways: (1) a direct subsidy from Metropolitan to all member agencies other than the Water
Authority when Metropolitan “credits” or writes member agencies a subsidy check; and (2) an
indirect subsidy to all Metropolitan water purchasers because treating supply costs as
“transportation” raises costs for.the Water Authority and lowers the cost of Metropolitan water.

: 10. Third, Metropolitan’s transportation rates are unlawful because they fail to account
for the practice by some member agencies of “rolling on” to Metropolitan’s system and buying
more water in dry years, and then “rolling off” of Metropolitan’s system and substantially
reducing their purchases from Metropolitan, in average years (“dry-year peaking”). Metropolitan
maintains excess capacity available in its Colorado River Aqueduct and its other transportation
facilities to accommodate dry-year peaking, and it also purchases and stores water so that it will
be available in dry years. During dry years, member agencies that “roll off” Metropolitan’s
system avoid paying Metropolitan’s ongoing costs of | maintaining excess capacity and stored
water. This “standby service” is expensive to provide, because the water supplies, storage and
other facilities require high. fixed costs to develop yet remain unused in during many years. The

agencies purchase more or less the same volume of water every year, other member agencies’
purchases of. Metropolitan water vary dramatically from one year to the next. For example,
Metropolitan’s official bond statements acknowledge that the City of Los Angeles’s purchases

on whether it is a wet year or a dry year—an amount more than the total water purchased by 17 of
Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies in 2013 combined, Yet Metropolitan does not calculate the |
full costs associated with dry-year peaking, nor does it evaluate whether those costs are recovered
proportionately. Instead, dry-year peaking costs are hidden in Metropolitan’s transportation tates,

purchasers like the Water Authority.
11. Accordingly, the Water Authority brings this action, requesting relief as set forth

4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 2192990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 06

Terrace sa

ds

827920

we IUD Bw vw

SB n= Ss

14

U. PARTIES

12. Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water Authority is, and at all times
mentioned herein was, a county water authority organized under the laws ‘of the State of :
California and located iri the County of San Diego, California. °

13. Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan is, and at all times mentioned herein was,
a public agency of the State of California organized pursuant to the Metropolitan Water District
‘Act [Stats. 1969, ch. 209 as amended; West’s California Water Code Append. §§ 109-134
(2010)}, the principal offices of which are located in Los Angeles, California.

14. The true names and ‘capacities of the Respondents and Defendants identified as
DOES 1-10 are unknown to Petitioner, ‘and. Petitioner will amend this Complaint to-insert the true
names and capacities of those fictitiously named Respondents when they are ascertained. |
Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to this
action, each of the Respondents and Defendants, including those fictitiously named, was the agent |.
or employee of each of the other Respondents and Defendants, and while acting within the course
and scope of such employment or agency, took part in either the acts or omissions alleged in this
Complaint.

IM. SERVICE OF PROCESS
15. _ Petitioner will serve Metropolitan and all other defendants/respondents in the

manner provided by law for the service of summons in a civil action. .

16. . The Water Authority will publish notice of this action in newspapers of general
circulation published in the six counties served by Metropolitan, and the county where the 2010
and 2012 Rate Cases are currently pending, as this is the method most likely to give notice to the
persons interested in these proceedings. Those counties are Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San |
Bernardino, Orange, San Diego, and San Francisco. The Water Authority will seek an order,
either ex ‘parte or by stipulation, authorizing: -

a. Publication of the summons in newspapers of general circulation in these
counties pursuant to Code of ‘Civil Procedure Section 861; and,

5

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 212090 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 8

827920

_

we a A WwW Aw DW

Aas USF FS Cae rAaBRE TE FS

b. That notice be given by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to
, those persons, if any, or their attorneys, who have notified Petitioner’s attorneys of record
in writing of their interest i in the matter not later than the date on which publication of the
summons is compléte or such other time as the Court may order,
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. ' This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1085, Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10, and, with respect to the Third Cause of

- Action, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 860 et seq., and Government Code Section 66022.

18. ° Venue is proper in this court as Respondent is located within the County of Los
Angeles‘and the acts and events giving rise to the claims occurred in part in the County of Los
Angeles. This suit, however, is subject.to transfer of venue to a neutral county pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure Section’394(a); and San Diego intends to move for transfer of venue.

Vv. , . FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ,

A. Metropolitan, its roles, and its duties

19. Metropolitan is a wholesale water agency that imports, stores, transports and treats
water throughout the Southern California counties of ‘Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego. Metropolitan has 26 member egencies, including the Water
Authority. These member agencies vary greatly in their size, service area, and dependence on
Metropolitan water, The amount of water member agericies purchase from Metropolitan ranges
from a few hundred acre-feet of water per year for Metropolitan’s smallest member agencies to
hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water per year for larger member agencies, such as the
Water Authority and the Municipal Water District of Orange County. The member agencies
purchase water from Metropolitan, and then in turn sell that water tc sub-agencies and utilities or
directly to consumers, In addition to obtaining and delivering imported water for sale to its: -
member agencies, Metropolitan has also chosen to subsidize some member agencies’
conservation and local water supply development projects.

20. * Metropolitan obtains water for sale to its member agencies from two principal
sources: first, from a water purchase contract with the California DWR, described above; and,

6

‘SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 2149990 warrowwrpe tecan | @

827920

eo Om NY ATH Fw NH &

Nb NY NY YNNN ee ew vee

second, from Metropolitan’s allocation of water from the Colorado River. The water
Metropolitan purchases from the California DWR is delivered by the DWR via State Water
Project facilities directly to Metropolitan’s distribution facilities located in Southern California,
where it may be mixed with other sources of Metropolitan Water and distributed to member
agencies. Metropolitan transports its Colorado River water via the Metropolitan-owned and
operated Colorado River Aqueduct. In this Complaint, water from these two principal sources of

‘imported water will be referred to collectively as “Metropolitan Water,” and water acquired by

the Water Authority from other third- |-party sources will be referred to generally as “Non- ,
Metropolitan Water.”

21. Metropolitan’s operations are largely paid for by volumetric (per-acre-foot) rates it
imposes for specific services it provides to its member agencies as part of its unbundled rate
structure, such as transportation, supply, or treatment. In addition, Metropolitan collects a limited
amount of revenue through the imposition of fixed charges imposed on its 26 member agencies,
property taxes, and wheeling revenues paid by the Water Authority under the Exchange ,
Agreement for Metropolitan's transportation of TID and Canal Lining Water. The Metropolitan
Water District Act (“MWD Act”), which defines the powers and responsibilities of both ~
Metropolitan and its Board, obligates Metropolitan to set rates that “shall be uniform for like
Classes of service throughout the district.” Metropolitan i is also obligated by various state statutes,
the California Constitution, and the common law to set rates that are both consistent with cost-of-
service requirements (ie, , the rates charged to a member agency must not exceed the cost of
providing services to that agency) and non-discriminatory.

22. Metropolitan has a board of directors, which includes at least one representative
appointed by each member agency. Additional seats on the Board and weighted votes are
allocated according to each member agency’s percentage share of the total assessed property
value within the Metropolitan service area. .

B. The Water Authority is Metropolitan’s largest steady customer.
23. Unlike the other Southern California counties served by Metropolitan, San Diego ,

County has little local groundwater. As a result, the Water Authority historically relied on
7

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND __
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 21990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 38

se

gee

Tete

ts

827920

Cem YU AH a WW

10

Metropolitan for a much higher percentage of its total water supply than most other Metropolitan |
memaber agencies—in the early 1990s, Metropolitan Water constituted as much as 95% of San :

Diego County’s water supply.

24. Even today, the Water Authority remains Metropolitan's largest steady purchaser

‘of Metropolitan Water. Between 2006 and 2013, the Water Authority purchased more than 3.3

million acre-feet of Metropolitan Water. In addition, during that same period, the Water
Authority paid Metropolitan to transport more than 920,000 acre-feet of its purchased IID and
Canal Lining Water, As Metropolitan’s largest customer, and the only member agency dependent
on Metropolitan’s transportation service to deliver a large volume of third-party water—due to
Metropolitan’s monopoly on water distribution pipelines and facilities in Southern California—
the Water Authority is uniquely vulnerable to Metropolitan unlawfully setting its transportation
rates in a manner that exceeds the reasonable cost of providing water transportation service and
that discourages wheeling.

Cc The Water Authority purchases water from outside of Metropolitan.

25. ‘Historically, Metropolitan’s imported water-was cheap and plentiful, before
environmental restrictions began limiting flows from the Bay Delta and the other western states
began using more of their entitlements, thus limiting Metropolitan's access to the surplus :
Colorado River water it had beeri using to fill its Colorado River Aqueduct. Accordingly, the
Water Authority did not need (and thus did not seek out) third-party sources of water like IID.
This all changed during the early 1990s, when California experienced a severe drought.
Metropolitan cut San Diego’s water supply by more than 30% for 13 months, causing major
economic disruptions and forcing San Diego to enact extreme water-use reduction measures. In
the wake of that experience, the Water Authority began to look elsewhere for more reliable
sources of water supply, to guard against future water supply shortages and rationing by

|| Metropolitan. -

26. The Water Authority ultimately contracted with IID to purchase up to 200,000
acre-feet per year of Colorado River water for 4 45-year period, plus a 30-year extension with
mutual consent. The Water Authority also obtained the right to 80,000 acre-feet of water

: .

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 219}2090 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 3

rI@Z- eee se

_

-
°

oe a AH aw DW.

conserved by the lining of the All-American and Coachella Canals. Because Metropolitan owns
the only water distribution facilities linking the Colorado River to the Water Authority’s service
area, the Water Authority and Metropolitan negotiated the 2003 Exchange Agreement, for
delivery of water to the Water Authority’s own distribution and water storage facilities.

27. * Pursuant to séetion 5.2 of the Exchange Agreement, Metropolitan agreed that the
Price for transporting this Non-Metropolitan Water to the Water Authority “shall be equal to the
charge or charges set by Metropolitan's Board of Directors pursuant to applicable law and
regulation and generally applicable to the conveyance of water by Metropolitan on behalf of its
member agencies.” . ,

_ 28. As part of the negotiations of the Exchange Agreement, Metropolitan demanded,
and the Water Authority agreed to, a litigation time-out, during which the Water Authority would
not challenge Metropolitan’s rates in any “administrative or judicial forum” for the first five years
of the agreeinent, including any claim that the Price set by Metropolitan pursuant to the Exchange
Agreement was not “set in accordance with applicable law and regulation.” That five-year time-
out expired in 2008. :

D. _=Metropolitan’s rates‘

29. Prior to 2003, Metropolitan charged its member agencies a single “buindled” rate
for water, which incorporated all of Metropolitan’s costs of supply, transportation, power, _
treatment (if applicable), and administration. Metropolitan’s bundled rate was charged on a per-
acre-foot, volumetric basis, with rates set on an annual basis.

30. With an eye toward the impending Water Authority-IID water transfer, in the late
1990°s, Metropolitan began a process of unbundling its rates. In October 2001, the Metropolitan
board approved a rate structure, effective January 1, 2003, consisting of an unbundled series of
rates, related nominally to particular services that Metropolitan provides, including water supply,
transportation, standby service, power and water treatment. The Water Authority opposed these
rates, in part because Metropolitan did not disclose at the time how its costs would be allocated
‘among the individual rates.

9

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

10.00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 213b990 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 36

Cea DAH a wD

aa
oI A ARE BANH ES

19

31. Metropolitan sets its rates annually or, more recently, biennially. In doing so, the
Metropolitan board votes not only on the dollar amount of the rates, but on an allocation of costs
to each rate; and Metropolitan affirms that, in its view, that year’s allocation of costs to each
particular rate is consistent with the cost of the services it provides to its member agencies. In

every rate-setting cycle, Metropolitan has discretion to add or change its rates and charges, or the

allocation of Metropolitan’s costs among its rates and charges and among its member agencies, so

Jong as cost-of-service requirements are met; indeed, Metropolitan has made such changes from
time to time. Metropolitan has acknowledged that each year’s rate-setting decision is a unique
agency action. Thus, each year’s rates must meet all legal requirements and each year’s rate may
be independently challenged i in court.

32, Metropolitan's 2015/2016 rates include the following: a Tier 1 Supply Rate, a Tier

2 Supply Rate, a System Access Rate, a System Power Rate, a Water Stewardship Rate, a

Readiness-to-Serve Charge, a Capacity Charge, and a Treatment Charge. Metropolitan’s Tier 1
and Tier 2 Supply Rates purport to recover Metropolitan’s cost of obtaining water from various
sources, and developing long-term firm water supplies. The System Access Rate, System Power
Rate, and Water Stewardship Rate comprise Metropolitan’s “Transportation Rates,” and are
discussed further below. Metropolitan’s Readiness-to-Serve Charge ostensibly recovers a portion
of Metropolitan’s costs for providing standby service. Metropolitan's Capacity Charge is
purportedly designed.to pay for the cost of the capacity on Metropolitan’s system to meet peak
day demands. Metropolitan’s Treatment Charge is purportedly designed to recover the cost of
providing treated water service. Metropolitan’s 2015/2016 Cost of Service Analysis introduced a

| new line item, labeled the “Full Service Exchange Cost,” which is nowhere explained i in the Cost
|| of Service Analysis but appears to be a composite of Metropolitan’ 's Transportation Rates——the

System Access Rate, System Power Rate, and Water Stewardship Rate.

1. Metropolitan’s Transportation Rates
33. Metropolitan has three rates that it charges to member agencies for most water —
conveyed through Metropolitan’s system. These are Metropolitan’s “Transportation Rates,” and
Metropolitan defines each rate as follows: ,
10

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND -
COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY, DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF00/00/2014 10:23:30 FAX 213} s000 NATIONWIDE LEGAL 3

rTelry@ee sa

Oe IY A HW eww =

Se ee
v= So

a) System Access Rate, The System Access Rate purports to recover “the
cost of providing conveyance and distribution capacity to meet average annual demands.” This
rate therefore recovers a large share of Metropolitan’s costs to maintain and operate its
distribution system within the Souther California region, along with Metropolitan’s Colorado
River Aqueduct. In its 2015/2016 rates, as in previous years, Metropolitan has als elected to
include in its System Access Rate a large share of. Metropolitan’ 's costs paid to DWR J for water
supply from the State Water Project, even though the State Water Project is neither owned nor
operated by Metropolitan, and it is DWR, not Metropolitan, that transports State Water Project »
water from Northern California to Metropolitan’s storage reservoirs and facilities.

db) , System Power Rate. The System Power Rate purports to recover “the costs
of pumping water to Southern California.” In its 2015/2016 rates, Metropolitan incorporates into :
the System Power Rate its power and pumping costs for its