Best Best & Krieger LLP (BBK)的动态

This series of webinars will provide insight on important issues involving rate setting issues. Hope you can join!

LEGAL ALERT: In the past week, California's Governor signed into law three bills to ensure fair water rates across California. 1) SB 1072 requires that any surplus funds collected from water & wastewater customers be used to reduce future fees. 2) AB 1827 confirms that meter charges and peak usage associated with higher costs of water service are appropriate components of water fees. 3) AB 2257 provides a framework for an administrative exhaustion procedure that will create more protections from Prop. 218 lawsuits for water, sewer, and solid waste agencies in the future. Read the full Legal Alert by partners Allison Schutte and Claire Hervey Collins, and associate Robert Pierce here: https://lnkd.in/gzKgxkbx #HansonBridgett #GovernmentAlert #SB1072 #AB1827 #AB2257

San Diego Water Rates Litigation The San Diego Court of Appeal has set argument in Patz v. San Diego, an important water rates challenge under Prop. 218. The trial court invited each party to prepare a form of decision and adopted the plaintiffs’. As a result, its logic is extreme and problematic — it holds that rate distinctions based on the peaking characteristics of water use (i.e., how much more water a class of customers uses at peak demand compared to its average water use) are not permitted under Proposition 218 unless the water supplier has time-of-use data for every customer. This just has to be wrong. Peaking factors have been used to make water rates for more than a century and time-of-use data is a cutting-edge technology only the largest utilities have yet deployed. Argument is March 11, 2024 at 9 a.m. Decision is due within 90 days of arguments but typically comes sooner. Meghan Wharton of our team will argue for San Diego, and the whole public agency water industry will be watching. Break a leg, Meghan!

50 Years of MoDNR: In 1989, the Missouri Water Resource Law was passed to ensure that the quality and quantity of the water resources of the state are maintained at the highest level to support present and future uses. Learn more at https://ow.ly/Prl150SKaSp. #MoDNR50

From 15 March an updated special administration regime for water industry companies, with a new emphasis on rescue, is fully operational. It includes modernised rules and regulations, by way of modifications to the standard insolvency legislation. Links to the Legislation implementing the changes are here : https://lnkd.in/dc4bbVst https://lnkd.in/d_Sma6Kf https://lnkd.in/dvQ6vnMn https://lnkd.in/dBc6D2a6 A keeling schedule has also been published to assist practitioners in navigating the changes made to Insolvency Rules 2016 by the 2024 Rules. These run to over 400 pages: https://lnkd.in/dpbzr6sg ? Melissa Coakley, Iain White, Philip Hertz, David Towers, John MacLennan, Tim Lees For more details on the key aspects of the special administration regime see our previous briefing on the subject. ?? #waterindustry #administrationregime #insolvencylaw

Surprising decision today from the Appellate Division, First Department, reviving one aspect of the Glen Oaks litigation seeking to invalidate NYC’s Local Law 97.???Back in November 2023, the motion court had, on the way to dismissing the entire complaint, rejected allegations that the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (the CLCPA) preempted Local Law 97.?The motion court had cited several instances in the text of the CLCPA which sought to harmonize the State’s and City’s mutual interests in abating greenhouse emissions and found that the CLCPA therefore did not preempt Local Law 97.?? The Appellate Division, however, determined that there is language in the CLCPA which “could” lead one to conclude that the CLCPA was intended to preempt local laws relating to “greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures,”?and on that basis (and that basis alone), revived the lawsuit and is allowing it to proceed.?The court did affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ other causes of action. The bottom line is that as of today, Local Law 97 remains fully enforceable and in effect, but the appellate court did re-open the possibility that these plaintiffs in this lawsuit could ultimately succeed in having the law struck down.? https://lnkd.in/egUUc-H5

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court confirmed that the Manchester Ship Canal Company can pursue common law claims against United Utilities for nuisance and trespass due to the discharge of untreated effluent into the canal. The High Court and Court of Appeal had found otherwise and the case focussed on whether the Water Industry Act 1991 prevented the canal company from bringing a claim in nuisance or trespass for pollution from discharges of foul water from the water company’s outfalls, even if there has been no negligence or deliberate misconduct. The essence of the decision in the lower courts referred to the discharges occurring without United Utilities doing anything to cause it and that there was nothing they could do to prevent it beyond building new sewers. United Utilities contended that an earlier case (Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2003] UKHL 66) established that the intention with the 1991 Act was that the construction of new sewerage infrastructure should be a matter for the Secretary of State or the regulator and not the courts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that there are indications that Parliament did not intend the 1991 Act to exclude a claimant's right to enforce its private rights in a watercourse. It highlighted that the arbitration provision under section 186(7) of the 1991 Act "strongly suggests" that a common law claim could be pursued. Section 180 with Schedule 12 of the Act makes provision for compensation for damage caused by the authorised acts of sewerage undertakers, but not where it is unauthorised. The Supreme Court also found that depriving the victims of their nuisance or trespass common law rights to act would be a "substantial change" to the law as it stood before the 1991 Act was enacted. This ruling presumably applies as much to private landowners as large corporates. [The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Appellant) v United Utilities Water Ltd (Respondent) (No 2) [2024] UKSC 22] #ManchesterShipCanalvsUnitedUtilities #DischargeeffluentintoCanals #WaterIndustryAct1991

EXPLORE: https://lnkd.in/eE6-ykdT In case you missed it... The Supreme Court's eagerly awaited decision in the high-profile Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities Water private nuisance litigation has been published. It brings together the developing law on nuisance, the current trend towards strategic and green litigation – alongside recent media focus on the state of the UK's waterways. In finding that the canal owner can pursue a private nuisance claim against the statutory undertaker, the Supreme Court's decision could prompt both a run of claims against water companies, and investment in improved water infrastructure. Walker Morris' Commercial Dispute Resolution and Environment experts explain. #DisputeResolution #Litigation #Waterways #WalkerMorris #ForgeYourOwnPath

Understanding Inter-State Water Disputes in India Inter-State Water Disputes in India are a complex issue with legal, political, and environmental implications. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956 provides a framework for adjudication, with the Supreme Court playing a crucial role. Recent cases like the Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal Dispute and the Cauvery River Water Dispute highlight the challenges in water resource management.

From 15 March an updated special administration regime for water industry companies, with a new emphasis on rescue, is fully operational. It includes modernised rules and regulations, by way of modifications to the standard insolvency legislation. Links to the Legislation implementing the changes are here : https://lnkd.in/dc4bbVst https://lnkd.in/d_Sma6Kf https://lnkd.in/dvQ6vnMn https://lnkd.in/dBc6D2a6 A keeling schedule has also been published to assist practitioners in navigating the changes made to Insolvency Rules 2016 by the 2024 Rules. These run to over 400 pages: https://lnkd.in/dpbzr6sg ? Melissa Coakley, Iain White, Philip Hertz, David Towers, John MacLennan, Tim Lees For more details on the key aspects of the special administration regime see our previous briefing on the subject. ?? #waterindustry #administrationregime #insolvencylaw