Eighteen Years Over an Audit

The City of Fresno treats Pinedale County Water District’s sewage under an agreement both sides signed in 2007. In 2008 the City sued to enforce its right under that agreement to audit the district’s sewer billing. Eighteen years later the two are still in court. Every filing and opinion I have is posted on the Court cases page at pcwdinfo.com.

How it unfolded

• 2008: the City sues to enforce its right to audit (Madera County Superior Court).
• 2011–2013: the court rules for the City and awards it attorney fees; the Court of Appeal affirms in 2013. A second amended judgment in April 2015 sets the total at $127,515.84.
• 2016: settlement talks. According to testimony described in the Court of Appeal’s 2022 opinion, the City proposed that the district pay the judgment over 10 years with no interest. The district’s general manager testified that the district offered 25 percent and would consider $40,000. No written offer was made, and the talks ended.
• 2017: the City asks a court to order the district to pay. The case moves to Kings County. In 2018 the district sues to cancel the sewer agreement altogether.
• 2022: the Court of Appeal rules for the City and the California Supreme Court declines review. The City’s appeal costs are added to the judgment.
• 2023: the district adopts a sewer surcharge to pay the judgment over 10 years, starting Nov. 1, 2023.
• 2024: the City asks the court to require immediate payment. The court orders the district to pay $312,304.25 plus interest and fines it $1,000.
• 2025: the Court of Appeal reverses that order on procedural grounds: no writ had been issued or served.
• 2026: the court denies the district’s request to pay in installments. The district has three appeals pending (F089743, F091532 and F092189).

One more detail from the 2022 opinion: the City had not actually conducted the audit.

What it means

The judgment has grown from about $127,500 to more than $312,000 plus interest. That doesn’t count what the district has paid its own lawyers over 18 years, a figure I have asked for and not received. Customers are paying the judgment through the sewer surcharge, which applies to all sewer customers.

Stepping back

The courts have said repeatedly that the City was entitled to audit. The district has won one procedural point in 18 years. At some point, continuing to litigate costs ratepayers more than any outcome could save them. I think that point passed a long time ago.

Dutcher’s Take

Customers are paying for a lawsuit they have never been able to see. Many probably believe the sewer surcharge that began in 2023 settled it. It hasn’t. I have asked for the court filings and the district’s legal costs in this case, and I have not received a single page. I have submitted four public records requests since August. The district’s counsel, who advises the board every month and bills the district for these appeals, advised the district not to provide them. The replies have said that a board member can’t enforce a records request, that there would be no further response, and that a narrowed request repeated earlier ones. As I read the Act, those aren’t reasons it allows, and none of the replies names an exemption for any specific record.

Every request and reply is posted, unedited except for personal contact details, on the records requests page at pcwdinfo.com. The board can put those records in front of customers. So far it hasn’t. When and if the district answers, I’ll post it.