Earlier this year, the city of San Diego filed a lawsuit against San Diego Gas & Electric in a dispute over the utility’s underground infrastructure obstructing the construction of a $1.4 billion water recycling project.
Now, a second and separate lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a San Diego resident claiming an agreement between the city and SDG&E to help get the project started is illegal.
The latest suit was submitted to state Superior Court Dec. 16 by the local law firm of Aguirre & Severson, representing San Diego businessman John Stump.
At issue is the Pure Water San Diego Program, a project designed to reduce ocean pollution and increase the city’s water supply. The dispute centers on existing SDG&E equipment that is obstructing a portion of the project. The city says SDG&E should pick up the tab for moving the infrastructure but the utility has refused.
To move the project along, the city — under protest — paid SDG&E $35.6 million under what is called a “Reservation of Rights Agreement” to have the utility design and relocate existing gas and electric utilities along the project’s right of way. In January, City Attorney Mara Elliott filed a 94-page lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court looking to get a judge to make SDG&E reimburse the $35.6 million.
The Stump lawsuit targets both the city and SDG&E, saying the money the city paid to the utility violates the California Code of Civil Procedure. The suit cites a specific section of a franchise agreement the city has with the utility that states SDG&E is required to pay for any and all relocation costs.
“The city doesn’t think there’s any doubt that SDG&E is required to pay” for the relocation costs, said attorney Michael Aguirre. “So therefore, the city is paying SDG&E’s bill, which is an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.”
The suit also says the city is estimated to pay as much as $98.8 million to SDG&E to relocate all the equipment necessary to complete the Pure Water project.
The City Attorney’s Office did not offer a reaction to the Stump lawsuit, saying in an email it does not comment on pending litigation.
A spokeswoman for SDG&E said the utility “will review the complaint once we are served and will respond accordingly.”
During the course of the disagreement between the city and SDG&E, the utility has said it’s unfair that some of the costs of the Pure Water Project should be shouldered by customers living in communities outside of San Diego that would not benefit from the program. SDG&E has also cited case law in California that holds utilities are not obligated to pay for relocations to accommodate municipal water projects.
The city has countered that Section 8 of its franchise agreement with SDG&E states that if there is a conflict between existing SDG&E equipment and a municipal project, SDG&E must move its equipment “without cost or expense to the City.”
The San Diego City Council approved the Pure Water Program in 2014. The 20-year project is designed to provide a “safe, secure and sustainable” supply of water for the city. Phase 1 of the program will create 30 million millions per day of potable water and divert sewage flow away from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In October, an additional dispute between the city and SDG&E was added to the City Attorney’s complaint and the city filed another lawsuit along a similar vein.
The Montezuma/Mid-City Pipeline Project involves a 66-inch pipe going from the Alvarado Water Treatment Plant to the intersection of 69th Street and Mohawk Street in College East. The city says the construction of the pipeline requires specialized excavation and tunneling and there are “numerous SDG&E facility conflicts” that require the utility to move its infrastructure.
The city says SDG&E has refused and in order to “avoid costly delays,” the city signed another Reservation of Rights Agreement with the utility. The city reallocated $1.389 million in funding from the Pure Water program to the Montezuma Project and paid it to SDG&E to relocate the utility’s gas infrastructure in the public right of way.
The city attorney’s October lawsuit against SDG&E calls for the $1.389 million to be reimbursed to the city.
The Montezuma and Pure Water lawsuits have been deemed to be related and both cases are pending before Superior Court Judge Eddie Sturgeon.
The disputes come at a time when the franchise agreement with SDG&E is a hot topic at City Hall.
The current 50-year deal is scheduled to expire Jan. 17. SDG&E has submitted a bid to retain the agreement for another 20 years and, among other conditions, pledges to pay the city $80 million upfront for electric and gas services.
The offices of the City Attorney and Mayor Todd Gloria say they will review the bid. Some members of the San Diego City Council have called for negotiating a one-year extension of the existing agreement to allow more time to make a decision.
Under a franchise agreement, a municipality gives a utility the exclusive use of public right-of-ways for transmission and distribution, as well as the right to install and maintain wires, poles, power lines and underground gas and electric lines.
"pure" - Google News
December 19, 2020 at 06:48AM
https://ift.tt/37zn5nn
Second lawsuit filed over San Diego's Pure Water project - The San Diego Union-Tribune
"pure" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3d6cIXO
https://ift.tt/35ryK4M
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Second lawsuit filed over San Diego's Pure Water project - The San Diego Union-Tribune"
Post a Comment