20070319Comments.pdf

03/19/2007 10: 19 FAX [phone] MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 141002
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED
ATfORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 W. BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 520; BOISE, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone] www.msbtlaw.com
STEPHANIBJ. BONNEY
SUSAN E. BUXTON"
PAULI- FITZER
MICHAEL C. MOORE~
BRUCE M. SMrrH
PAUL A. TURCKE'
CARtJ. WITHRO~)
T Al\fMY A. ZOKAN
JOHN J. McFADDEN~
ofCol/nsel
" Also admitted in California
+ Also admitted in New Mexioo
. Also admitted in Oregon0 Also admitted in South Dakota
'Also admitted in Washington
March 14 2007
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720
RE: Case No. UWI-O7-
Application by United Water Idaho Inc. for an
Amendment to its Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Approval of a
Special Facilities Agreement with A vimor LLC
Dear Commissioners:
The following constitutes the comments of the City of Eagle in response to the Application by
United Water Idaho Inc. for Amendment to its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 143
to allow service to an area in Ada County, Idaho and to approve a Special Facilities Agreement
SF A"). The area to be served and the SFA deal with a development known as Avimor.
UWI is requesting that the application be processed by Modified Procedure and that a public
hearing not be conducted on the issues presented. As an initial matter, the City of Eagle
disagrees that Modified Procedure is an appropriate method for conducting review and analysis
of this particular application given the inconsistency in information submitted by United Water.
One of the most significant concerns of the City of Eagle deals with the area which is to be
included within the expanded certificated area for United Water and the area to which the SF
would apply. The information supplied by United Water contains numerous inconsistencies in
defining both the geographical scope of the certificated area and the SF A terms. As an example
Exhibit E to the SF A identifies an area which is noted as the "New UWID Certificated Area
This area consists of lands both to the east and west of U.S. Highway 55. Exhibit A to the SF
identifies the "Avimor Planned Community" as being located entirely to the east of Highway 55.
03/19/2007 10: 20 FAX [phone] MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 141003
Exhibit H to the SF A identifies a "Geographic Area Available For Refund". This exhibit reflects
that the area available for refund is located to the east of Highway 55 but has facilities extending
to the northwest of the development and west of Highway 55.
The inconsistencies in the submittals by United Water Idaho continue with the testimony of 1\1r.
Wyatt, the General Manager of UWI. At Page 1 of his testimony, Mr. Wyatt identifies the
A vimor Planned Community as consisting of 700 residential and commercial building lots on the
east side of State Highway 55. He then testifies that Avimor owns or has an interest in
approximately 23 000 acres "for which Avimor has requested the company to expand its
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity." (Wyatt p. I , Line 17-19). At Page 10 of Mr.
Wyatt's testimony, he further explains that the service territory expansion indicated on Exhibit E
comprises land exclusively owned by Avimor. He then states
, "
Avimor has, by virtue of the
SF A, committed to having United Water as its water service provider for not only the initial
Avimor development, but for all their development on lands they own in the area." (Wyatt p. 10
L 3~5). This would appear to be the 23 000 acres mentioned. These inconsistencies leave
unclear whether the application is intended to address the 700 lot initial development or the
entire Avimor ownership of23 000 acres, and exactly what facilities are designed to serve which
lands. In short, the submittals by United Water leave more questions unanswered than answered.
The confusion and inconsistencies carry through to the SF A which also recognizes that Avimor
owns 23 000 acres, but"is interested in developing the fITSt village of a Planned Community
named A vimor consisting of approximately 700 residential and commercial building lots ("the
Project"). At Page 1 the SF A, it is suggested that the pipeline, booster station, and storage
reservoir are required to serve not only A vimor or the 700 residential and commercial lots in the
fITSt phase, but also "other potential developments in the vicinity of the project". (SF A
, p.
l).
These other developments are not identified.
Another area of confusion in the SF A is Paragraph 7 on Page 4 where it is indicated that
additional sources of supply capacity will be required for development in the Spring Valley
Ranch and other areas outside of the project that are within the company s service area
expansion as shown on Exhibit E." The reference in paragraph 7 that refers to service being
provided pursuant to "existing facilities" leaves unidentified where the water supply for the
project is to come from. Further, it leaves unanswered the question that if the certificated area is
larger than the existing supply can provide, where would the additional supply sources come
from? The City of Eagle submits that it is reasonable to have United Water disclose, and
appropriate for the Commission to examine, the water resources to be utilized by United Water.
The Commission should also examine whether United Water can serve this development given
the uncertainty in size and scope of development as identified in United Water s filings, without
jeopardizing service to its current system and existing customers.
In the Application and Request for Modified Procedure, United Water indicates that the public
interest does not require a hearing on the issues presented pursuant to its application. In his
testimony, Mr. Wyatt testifies that the expansion of the United Water Idaho service territory is
consistent with the public interest and that the SF A is not harmful to the public interest. The
Commission s ultimate conclusion may be the same. However, the City of Eagle would submit
that it is not in the public interest to approve the SF A and the amendment of the United Water
Idaho Certificate of Convenience and Necessity absent a public hearing especially given the
Page 2 of3
03/19/2007 10: 21 FAX [phone] MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 141 004
conflicting and ambiguous information submitted by UWL The City would urge the
Commission to schedule a hearhig for this matter in order that the public and the Commission
might be informed of the details of the proposal.
Sincerely,
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE CHTD.
Bruce M. Smith
on behalf of the City of Eagle
BMS/dls
Page 3 of 3