20240626Reply Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
2024 June 26 PM 4:59
IDAHO PUBLIC
Jennifer Reinhardt-Tessmer (ISB 7432) UTILITIES COMMISSION
Ashton G. Ruff (ISB 12220)
KIRTON MCCONKIE
1100 W. Idaho St., Ste. 930
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Dry Creek Water Company LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
INVESTIGATION INTO DRY CREEK ) CASE NO. DRY-W-24-01
WATER COMPANY, LLC OWNER OF A )
WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ) DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY,
SYSTEM ) LLC'S REPLY COMMENTS
COMES NOW, Dry Creek Water Company, LLC ("Dry Creek"), by and through its
legal counsel, Kirton McConkie, and in accordance with Rule 203 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or "Commission") and
respectfully submits its Reply in response to the Comments of the Commission Staff,
dated June 12, 2024 (hereafter "Staff Comments"). Dry Creek addresses the procedural
and substantive issues raised in the Staff Comments and demonstrates why Dry Creek
should not be classified as a public utility subject to regulation by the Commission.
BACKGROUND
In February of 2017, Dry Creek was formed to distribute water to the Dry Creek
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 1

Ranch Homeowners'Association, an Idaho non-profit corporation ("HOA")that represents
the interests of homeowners in the Dry Creek Ranch Planned Community. On a monthly
basis, Dry Creek issues a single bill to its customer, the HOA. The HOA, in turn, charges
residents of Dry Creek Ranch for their respective use of the water for potable and
irrigation purposes. Dry Creek has not made a cumulative net profit after depreciation on
the water distributed to the HOA, and in fact, has historically operated at a significant loss.
Likewise, the HOA does not profit from what is collected for water expenses from the Dry
Creek Ranch residents. Pursuant to the Water Delivery Agreement between Dry Creek
and the HOA, the "HOA warrants that assessments to the homeowners and water users
for water use will not exceed the fees and charges received from [Dry Creek] Water
Company, plus the internal costs of the HOA in managing the assessments and
collections and payments, but not to include any profit of the HOA."
In October of 2022, the IPUC began an investigation into whether Dry Creek was
operating as an unregulated public utility. A timeline of the key exchanges that occurred
in that investigation between IPUC and Dry Creek representatives between October of
2022 and March of 2023 is set forth in a memorandum authored by Albert P. Barker, which
was previously provided to Deputy Attorney General Hardie. (Mr. Barker's March
memorandum is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.) After performing
an informal investigation for approximately 16 months as to whether Dry Creek met the
criteria to be a regulated public utility, on May 24, 2024, the IPUC issued a formal Notice
of Investigation (the Order), which provided the case could be reviewed through written
submissions. The Order set forth a deadline for Staff and public comments of June 12,
2024, and a Respondent reply comment deadline of June 26, 2024. Staff filed its
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 2
4880-5746-7851.v1

comments on June 12th. No public comments were filed. On June 24, 2024, Dry Creek
retained the law firm of Kirton McConkie as legal counsel in these proceedings. The
following day, Kirton McConkie filed an expedited petition on behalf of Dry Creek to amend
the Order to extend the deadline for reply comments. At the time of this filing, a ruling on
the petition to amend had not yet been received.'
ANALYSIS
A. Dry Creek is Not Subject to Regulation by the Commission.
Under Idaho Code § 61-129, all "water corporations" are declared to be public
utilities and are subject to the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of the Commission. The
term "public utility" covers cases "[w]here the service is performed and the commodity
delivered directly to the public or some portion thereof, and where the service is performed
or the commodity delivered to any corporation or corporations, or any person or persons,
who in turn, either directly or indirectly or mediately or immediately, performs the services
or delivers such commodity to or for the public or some portion thereof..." I.C. § 61-129(1).
The term "water corporation" includes "every corporation or person ... owning, controlling,
operating or managing any water system for compensation within [Idaho]." I.C. § 61-125.
Under Idaho Code § 61-104 "corporation" does not include a "mutual nonprofit or
cooperative gas, electrical, water or telephone corporation or any other public utility
organized and operated for service at cost and not for profit. . . ." I.C. § 61-104.
Under the plain language of Idaho law, the Commission has no authority to
regulate Dry Creek because Dry Creek is not a corporation as defined in § 61-104.
Having not received a ruling on the petition to amend the Order to extend the deadline for reply comments,
Dry Creek is submitting preliminary reply comments. In the event the petition to amend is granted, Dry
Creek respectfully reserves the right to amend and/or submit additional comments to this Reply.
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 3
4880-5746-7851.v1

Specifically, Dry Creek is not operating and never has operated as a for profit company.
Rather, as evidenced by Dry Creek's financial statements showing operational losses,
Dry Creek has always been registered as a limited liability company operating on a not-
for-profit basis.
B. Dry Creek is Not a Water Corporation
Even if the Commission determines that Dry Creek is a corporation under Idaho
Code §61-104, the Commission must also determine that Dry Creek is a "water
corporation" under Idaho Code § 61-125. The Idaho Supreme Court stated that "[t]o hold
that a water corporation is a public utility, because it receives compensation for water
owned by it and furnished to a limited number of inhabitants of Boise, within a limited
area, would be an unreasonable interpretation of [Idaho law]." Stoehr v. Natatorium Co.,
34 Idaho 217, 221, 200 P. 132, 133 (1921). Such a construction of the law "may involve
the question of the constitutionality of the statutes." Id. The Court further held that "[i]n
determining whether a corporation is a public utility, we must not lose sight of the basic
principles underlying governmental control of business, nor fail to appreciate and respect
constitutional limitations." Id. "To hold that property has been dedicated to a public use is
not a trivial thing and such dedication is never presumed without evidence of unequivocal
intention." Id. at 222, 200 P. at 133.
In this case, Dry Creek has not dedicated its services to public use and does not
intend to dedicate any of its property to the service of the general public. Moreover, the
Staff Comments point to no "evidence of unequivocal intention" that Dry Creek desires to
be or has held itself out as being a public utility. In fact, Dry Creek serves only the HOA,
which is itself not a regulated public utility. Dry Creek informed the Commission of this in
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 4
4880-5746-7851.v1

its December 5, 2022 letter wherein it stated "[t]he Company intends to continue serving
only one customer, which is the HOA. The Company will not supply water to the public."
Absent evidence of unequivocal intent to become a utility devoted to public use, Dry Creek
cannot be considered a water corporation as defined by Idaho Code § 61-125. Therefore,
Dry Creek is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
C. Dry Creek's Sole Customer is an HOA
Additionally, as described in the attached March memorandum, Dry Creek was
specifically set up to solely serve the HOA. This decision was based on clear guidance
from the Commission confirming that Homeowners'Associations are specifically exempt
from the regulatory oversight of the Commission and that entities with only one customer
are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction:
IPUC Regulated Water Company - Any small water system serving more than
one customer is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission as provided by Idaho Code, Title 61 unless they are organized as a
homeowners association, formal water district, municipality or other mutual
non-profit organization represented by board members. The Commission's
jurisdiction and authority is very broad and include approval of authorized
service area, rates and charges, accounting and reporting requirements, service
quality, customer relation's rules and customer information rules.
https://puc.webstg.idaho.gov/FileRoom/PubIicFiles/water/swc/SWC%20Types%20of%2
OWater%20util ities.pdf.
Moreover, "[t]he furnishing of water to one person or corporation, under a contract,
does not constitute a delivery of water to the public or some portion thereof." Humbird
Lumber Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 39 Idaho 505, 511, 228 P. 271, 273 (1924). "A
corporation becomes a public service corporation, and therefore subject to regulation as
a public utility, only when and to the extent that the business of such corporation becomes
devoted to a public use." Id. at 512, 228 P. at 273 (quoting Stoehr, 34 Idaho at 221, 200
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 5
4880-5746-7851.v1

P. at 133). It is undisputed that the HOA is a private, non-profit entity charged with
delivering water to its members under the terms of its agreement with Dry Creek.
Furthermore, because Dry Creek provides services to only the HOA and the HOA is
exempt from the Commission's oversight, Dry Creek should also be exempt. See Humbird
Lumber Co., 39 Idaho at 508, 228 P. at 271 (holding that a lumber company which
supplied water to one customer—an exempt railroad—was not a public utility subject to
the Commission's jurisdiction).
The Staff Comments contend that Dry Creek operates as a public utility because
it charges the HOA, who then recoups its charges from its members. The Staff Comments
also insist that because HOA members lack control over Dry Creek's operations or the
rates charged for water services, regulation is necessary. Dry Creek disagrees with these
characterizations. Dry Creek's primary and sole customer is the HOA entity, not the
individual homeowners. The contractual relationship between Dry Creek and the HOA is
a private arrangement wherein the HOA assumes responsibility for distributing water and
billing the members. This arrangement does not equate to providing services to the public
at large, a key criterion for public utility status under Idaho Code § 61-129(1). Moreover,
the fact that HOA members are entitled to one vote for each lot owned and have the power
to remove HOA Directors without cause nullifies the Staff's argument that regulation of
Dry Creek is necessary to protect HOA members.
D. Financial Review
Staff's comments related to its financial review do not offer any proof to contest
Dry Creek's financial statements indicating it has operated at a loss (and is projected to
operate at a loss for the foreseeable future). Rather, in an effort to show that Dry Creek
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 6
4880-5746-7851.v1

should be regulated, Staff judges the adequacy of Dry Creek's current accounting
practices by comparing its past accounting practices to those accounting practices
required for regulatory accounting purposes. Staff quoted Idaho Code § 61-525 for the
proposition that the Commission is vested with the authority to require any and all public
utilities to carry a proper and adequate depreciation amount. However, as articulated
above, the IPUC has no authority to regulate companies that are operating at cost.
Indeed, the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Commission "has no
authority other than that granted to it by the legislature. It exercises a limited jurisdiction,
and nothing is presumed in favor of its jurisdiction." Idaho State Homebuilders v.
Washington Water Power, 107 Idaho 415, 418, 690 P.2d 350, 353 (1984). Congress
enacted rules allowing bonus depreciation in order to stimulate the economy and
encourage asset investment, and that is exactly what has occurred here. As confirmed
by Dry Creek's records, there has never been any positive cash flow, because of the
tremendous expense of infrastructure (even considering bonus depreciation). Dry Creek
has continued to invest (at a loss) into infrastructure, building its water company out in
phases. It is forecasted it will take an additional ten million dollars of investment into
infrastructure before completion.
The Staff Comments merely conclude that "[t]he use of bonus depreciation may
show a profitable company operating at a loss for income tax purposes but maintaining
profitability under generally accepted accounting principles." Dry Creek's use of bonus
depreciation, by itself, does not establish that Dry Creek has relinquished its not-for-profit
operating status. Moreover, it is the Commission, and not Dry Creek, that must produce
evidence that Dry Creek operates for profit such that it falls under the jurisdiction of the
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 7
4880-5746-7851.v1

Commission. See I.C. § 61-104. Staff's lengthy investigation yielded no evidence of a
profit. At most, a private water company was not implementing Idaho public regulatory
accounting preferred practices. This isn't sufficient to impose regulation.
The financial data provided to the Staff confirms that Dry Creek is not generating
profits from its operations. The mere possibility that Dry Creek would receive sufficient
deferred income tax liability to render it profitable in the future does not currently make it
a profitable company subject to Commission oversight. Therefore, its use of bonus
depreciation is inconsequential for the purposes of this proceeding.
E. Staff's Use of Staff Non-Exclusive Criteria is Invalid
In the Staff Comments, five criteria were identified by Staff as considerations for
determining the jurisdiction of the Commission over Dry Creek:
a. Is the Company a Non-Profit or a Co-op?
b. Does the Company operate for the service of customers at cost and not for
compensation?
c. Is the Company owned by its customers?
d. Do the customers have control of the rates charged by the Company?
e. Do the customers control the operations and capital expenditures of the
Company?
See Staff Comments, p. 3.
The Staff Comments do not identify the source of these criteria or any legal basis
for the Commission to apply these to its jurisdictional analysis of Dry Creek.
The sole issue in this case is whether Dry Creek is a water corporation operating
as a public utility in Idaho thereby allowing the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 8
4880-5746-7851.v1

Dry Creek. As stated previously, the IPUC "has no authority other than that granted to it
by the legislature. . . and nothing is presumed in favor of its jurisdiction." Idaho State
Homebuilders, 107 Idaho at 418, 690 P.2d at 353. Specifically, the Commission will have
jurisdiction over Dry Creek if and only if it falls under the definition of "corporation." See
I.C. § 61-104. Simply put, if Dry Creek is a (1) mutual nonprofit water corporation, (2)
cooperative nonprofit water corporation, or (3) any other public utility organized and
operated for service at cost and not for profit, then Dry Creek is not a corporation subject
to the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission Staff does not have the authority to
add criteria to section 61-104 to extend the Commission's jurisdiction.
Therefore, the only relevant criteria to be applied by the Commission Staff are (i)
is Dry Creek a non-profit or co-op; and (ii) does Dry Creek operate for the service of
customers and not for profit. All other considerations are inappropriate in this
circumstance. Therefore, the Commission should disregard all other criteria proposed by
the Staff.
CONCLUSION
Based on Idaho Supreme Court precedent and the Idaho statutes and guidelines
outlining the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over Dry Creek
because Dry Creek does not qualify as a corporation under Idaho Code § 61-104 or a
water corporation under Idaho Code § 61-125. Moreover, the policy objectives of
regulating public utilities include ensuring fair rates, reliable service, and protection from
monopolistic practices. In this case, regulation is unnecessary because (i) the HOA, as
Dry Creek's sole customer, has the ability to negotiate terms and rates, providing an
internal check on potential abuses; (ii) the private contractual nature of the relationship
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 9
4880-5746-7851.v1

between Dry Creek and the HOA ensures that disputes can be resolved through civil
litigation without involving regulatory oversight; and (iii) Dry Creek's not-for-profit
operational status and in reality, significant operational losses, indicate no risk to the
public at large.
DATED this 26th day of June 2024.
Is/Ashton G. Ruff
Ashton G. Ruff
Attorney for Dry Creek Water Company
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 10
4880-5746-7851.v1

MEMORANDUM
FROM: Albert P. Barker
DATE: March 16, 2023
RE: Dry Creek Ranch Water Co.
Dry Creek HOA
The PUC wrote to "Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water" on October 12, 2022, stating
that the PUC has information that Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water"may be" operating as an
unregulated public utility. It described the PUC's authority as:
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-501, the Commission has the authority to supervise and
regulate every public utility operating in Idaho. Under Idaho Code § 61-125, a"water
corporation"includes every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or
managing any water system in the State of Idaho for compensation. A water corporation
is regulated as a public utility in Idaho if it performs a service or delivers a commodity
directly to the public. Idaho Code § 61-129. Based on this authority, Commission Staff
believes Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water may be operating as a public utility and
should be regulated by the Commission.
(emphasis added).
The PUC's letter went on to state:
"Any water corporation operating or managing a small water system is subject to the
regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission as provided by Idaho Code, unless the system
is organized as a Homeowner's Association, formal water district, municipality, or other
mutual non-profit organization represented by board members."
(emphasis added).
The PUC asked if Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water intended to operate as a
Homeowner's Association, mutual non-profit or other organization outside the PUC's
jurisdiction.
There is no entity known as Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water, so the Dry Creek
Ranch Homeowners Association(HOA), which does deliver water directly to the homeowners,
wrote back to the PUC in a November 2, 2022 letter, explaining that the HOA provides and
intends to continue to provide water to the homeowners.
Page 1

PUC staff contacted the Dry Creek Ranch HOA President Randi Meredith by telephone
and confirmed to her that the HOA would not be regulated,but requested the name and contact
information for the water company serving the HOA. Ms. Meredith stated that the HOA
purchases water from Dry Creek Water Company and provided an address and contact
information. On November 17, 2022, the PUC wrote to Dry Creek Water Company LLC (the
Company), asserting that the PUC had information indicating that the Company was operating as
an unregulated utility. We since learned from PUC staff that this conclusion was based on the
PUC's staff review of IDEQ records of public water systems regulated by IDEQ under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In its November 17, 2022 letter the PUC asserted that it had broad
regulatory authority and repeated verbatim the descriptions of the scope of its authority
contained in its October 12, 2022 letter to Dry Creek Ranch Subdivision Water. The PUC again
asked if water would be provided to the homeowners by a homeowner's association, mutual non-
profit, or other exempt organization, and asked how the Company plans to deliver water to
"customers."
Dry Creek Water Co. responded on December 5, 2022, explaining that it did not deliver
water to the general public. It delivers water to a single customer—Dry Creek Ranch HOA.
The PUC responded to Dry Creek Water Co. in a letter dated January 11, 2023. The PUC
explained that staff"considers the following factors" in determining jurisdiction—(1)whether
the company plans to provide water to "customers" as a regulated utility; (2)whether the
company provides water as a municipal corporation, mutual non-profit, cooperative water
corporation or other entity organized and operated as a non-profit and(3) whether the company
intends to continue to provide water to "customers". Notably the PUC dropped any reference to
homeowners associations that had been included in its prior two letters. The January letter goes
Page 2

on to state that staff has concluded that the Company should be regulated and will recommend
that the Commission institute a formal investigation. The letter made no mention about the role
of the HOA in delivering water to the general public. It is not clear from this letter or in
discussions with staff and deputy AGs, how the PUC regards the role of the Dry Creek Ranch
HOA in delivering water to its homeowners or whether the PUC considers HOAs as exempt
from PUC jurisdiction or not.
In a meeting with staff and deputy AGs there was some indication that staff, counsel, or
the Commission believed that an HOA would not qualify as a non-regulated entity, unless its
board was actively controlled by the homeowners. Staff and the deputy AGs did not explain
what statutory authority or PUC decision authorized such a distinction based on whether the
homeowners had achieved control over the HOA. The PUC statutes provide an exclusion for
"any other public utility organized and operated for service at cost and not for profit..." Idaho
Code § 61-104. Unlike the reference to a"mutual non-profit" in this section, this latter provision
of§61-104 does not require the non-profit to be operated by a board comprised of or controlled
by individual homeowners or landowners.
Dry Creek Water System was set up years ago so that the HOA and not the Company
delivered water to the general public. This decision was based on guidance from the PUC
confirming that HOA's fit with the statutory exemption from PUC jurisdiction and that entities
with only one customer were not subject to PUC jurisdiction. See attached PUC Guidance.
Importantly, Dry Creek Ranch Homeowners'Association Inc. which delivers water to the
homeowners is organized and operates as a non-profit.
The statutory underpinning the PUC's jurisdiction involve definitions of a"corporation,"
Idaho Code § 61-104; a "water corporation,"Idaho Code § 61-125; and a"public utility,"Idaho
Page 3

Code § 61-129. Jurisdiction begins with the definition of a corporation, which expressly
excludes any "public utility organized and operated for service at cost and not for profit." Idaho
Code § 61-104. An entity cannot be a water corporation or a public utility unless it qualifies as a
corporation within the meaning of Idaho Code § 61-104.
Here the Dry Creek Ranch HOA is the entity that delivers water to the general public i.e.
the homeowners. Dry Creek Water Co. delivers only to the HOA, a single customer, not
customers and not the general public.
In Humbird Lumber Co. a PUC, 39 Idaho 505, 228 P. 271 (1924), the Supreme Court
held that a lumber company which supplied water to one customer—a railroad—was not a public
utility subject to PUC jurisdiction. Humbird cited with approval the case of Stoehr a Natatorium
Co., 34 Idaho 217, 200 P. 132 (1921). Stoehr is discussed in more detail below. Importantly,
Humbird supports the "one customer"rule set out in PUC's guidelines. See attached PUC
Guidance. Dry Creek Water Company does maintain and operate the community water system
for the HOA and the Dry Creek community under IDEQ rules. However, an entity need not be a
regulated PUC public utility to have to comply with IDEQ Safe Drinking Water regulations,
IDAPA 58.01.08.
In reviewing this situation, we are aware of two particularly pertinent PUC proceedings.
One is a matter cited by PUC staff in the recent meeting. In re Mayfield Springs Water
Company, Case No. MSW-W-08-01, Order No. 30628 (Aug. 26, 2008). Staff stated that the
PUC determined in Mayfield Springs that a Water Company in the same circumstances as Dry
Creek Water Company must be regulated as a public utility. That is not the case. Mayfield
Springs Water Company applied to the PUC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
and admitted in a prior court proceeding that it was a regulated public utility. It did not assert
Page 4

either before the PUC or the court that it was exempt from PUC jurisdiction or that the HOA was
delivering water to the general public.
The second PUC proceeding of note is a recent PUC decision in Sorrells a Sunnyside
Park Utilities, Inc., Case No. GNR-U-22-03, Order No. 35645 (December 27, 2022). In Sorrells
the PUC did determine that Sunnyside was a regulated public utility. However, the grounds were
different. No HOA was involved. Rather, Sunnyside delivered water to 19 commercial
customers. Sunnyside argued that delivery to 19 customers was not delivery to the general
public to qualify it as a public utility. Sunnyside relied on the case of Stoehr a Natatorium Co.,
34 Idaho 217, 200 P. 132 (1921), which held that a company was not a public utility just because
it received compensation for water furnished to a "limited number of the inhabitants of Boise."
This the Court held was not a service "devoted to a public use." See also Codd a McGoldrick
Lumber, 48 Idaho 1, 279 P. 298 (1929)(affirming Stoehrs holding). Sunnyside argued that it
likewise only supplied water to a limited number of customers and so was exempt, like the
Natatorium in Stoehr. Stoehr has not been overruled,but the PUC concluded that Stoehr was no
longer good law and held that supplying water to 19 customers met the definition of providing
water to the general public.
In addition, the PUC also stated that Sunnyside had not demonstrated that it was either
organized or"operated" as a non-profit, and so was not exempt. (The PUC did not explain why
"operated"was placed in quotes in the Sorrells decision. Nor did the deputy AGs or staff offer
an explanation of what the PUC meant during the meeting with Dry Creek Water Company.).
This situation is very different here, even if the HOA legal structure and the HOA delivery of
water to the customers is ignored,because Dry Creek Water is not"operated" for profit, even
Page 5

though not currently organized as a non-profit entity. There is no dispute, however, that the HOA
is a non-profit entity, and is both as operated and organized as not for profit.
Based on Idaho Supreme Court precedent, the PUC jurisdictional statutes and guidelines,
neither the Dry Creek Ranch HOA nor the Dry Creek Water Company is a regulated public
utility subject to PUC jurisdiction.
Page 6

Types of Water Utilities and who regulates them
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is given the power and jurisdiction by the
Idaho Legislature to supervise and regulate every water company that is a
public utility in the State of Idaho. This authority is broad enough to include the
power to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the
provisions of the public utilities' laws. A water company is a public utility if it is
a private entity, either corporation or person, that owns, controls, operates or
manages any water system for compensation within the state. Both for-profit
and non-profit companies may be regulated
IPUC Regulated Water Company - Any small water system serving more than
one customer is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission as provided by Idaho Code, Title 61 unless they are organized as a
homeowners association, formal water district, municipality or other mutual
non-profit organization represented by board members. The Commission's
jurisdiction and authority is very broad and include approval of authorized
service area, rates and charges, accounting and reporting requirements, service
quality, customer relation's rules and customer information rules.
Home Owners Association (HOA) is a legal entity that governs a subdivision,
condominium or town home development or planned community. HOA is
mandatory for property owners with the development. The HOA is run by a
board, which is bound by the HOA bylaws and board positions are filled by
election or appointment. The HOA collects a fee assessment from all owners to
maintain common areas, address legal and safety issues, and enforce
restrictions that are applicable to that particular residential area. The HOA also
provides residents with a platform to address common concerns of the
community.
Water Association is a not for-profit organization that provides oversight for a
water system. Often set up similar to a HOA, with members represented by
homeowners and jurisdiction is limited to water issues in a defined area.
Water District - Created by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR),
through division of the state's public streams or water supplies into water
districts for which the courts have adjudicated priorities of appropriations. The
director also has authority to revise the boundaries of existing districts, combine
two or more districts and /or abolish districts if such action is necessary to
properly administer water uses. Each active water district in Idaho has a water
master who oversees water distribution within the district. Title 42 Irrigation
and Drainage - Water Rights and Reclamation, Chapter 6 Distribution of Water
Among Appropriators, Section 42-604.
loft
SWC Types of Water Utilities.doc

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of June 2024, 1 served the foregoing
document upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and
addressed to the following:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission: Hand Delivered
Commission Secretary U.S. Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074 FAX
[e-mail] X Email
Al*
Ashton G. Ruff
Kirton McConkie
DRY CREEK WATER COMPANY'S REPLY COMMENTS - 11
4880-5746-7851.v1