Case Background
B&C Water Resources, L.L.C. (B&C)
was granted water Certificate No. 626-W in 2004.[1] B&C is a Class C utility that provides
water service to five customers in Baker and Union Counties through wells
located in areas leased by individual hunt clubs.
In 2017, the Commission approved B&C’s
application for the transfer of majority organizational control of B&C in
Baker and Union Counties on the parent level from Plum Creek Manufacturing
Holding Company (Plum Creek) to Weyerhaeuser NR Company (WNR).[2] The transfer of majority organization
control occurred pursuant to the merger of Plum Creek, of which B&C was a
wholly-owned subsidiary, into WNR.
On May 31, 2019, WNR filed a request to
cancel Certificate No. 626-W, stating that B&C does not currently provide
water service to customers for compensation, and has no plans for doing so in
the future. WNR believes that, under the circumstances which it currently
operates, described in Issue 1, it does not meet the definition of a utility
given in Section 367.021, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
In its 2018 annual
report, B&C reported providing service to one residential and six general
service customers. In its response to staff’s July 18, 2019 data request, B&C reported
that the reference to a residential customer in its annual report was
erroneous, and that it now provides water for only five hunt clubs. B&C
also reported in its 2018 annual report that it received water revenues of $0. The
net loss for 2018 was $23,877. This recommendation addresses the cancellation
of Certificate No. 626-W since B&C is no longer operating as a utility as
defined by Section 367.021(12), F.S. The Commission has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Section 367.011, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should Certificate No. 626-W, held by B&C Water
Resources, L.L.C. be canceled?
Recommendation:
Yes. Certificate No. 626-W should be canceled
effective the date the order becomes final. (M. Watts)
Staff Analysis:
B&C was originally organized to provide water
service to future customers created by prospective real estate development in
the service area. Initially, B&C only provided water through individual
wells to hunting lodges located on its property. The hunting lodges were leased
by individual hunt clubs. Due to the economic downturn in 2008, the real estate
development never materialized. Thus, the hunt clubs remain the only users of
the water from B&C’s wells. B&C stated in its request for cancellation
that it has determined that there are no realistic market objectives supporting
the purpose for which B&C was originally organized as a utility.
Section 367.021(12), F.S., defines a utility as,
…a water or wastewater utility and, except as
provided in Section 367.022, F.S., includes every person, lessee, trustee, or
receiver owning, operating, managing, or controlling a system, or proposing
construction of a system, who is providing, or proposes to provide, water or
wastewater service to the public for compensation.
Currently, the hunt clubs lease land from WNR’s parent
company, Weyerhaeuser Company. Since the hunt clubs exist within discrete areas
of Weyerhaeuser Company’s land, the members of each hunt club use a single well
for small-volume, infrequent cleaning associated with their seasonal hunting
activities. The water is accessed at the well through the pump and is only used
for cleaning animals. There is no distribution system providing water to the
lodges, and the hunters do not use the water for personal consumption. The hunt
clubs are currently not charged for the use of the water, either directly or
indirectly through their leases.
The Utility is current with filing its annual reports and
has no outstanding fines. B&C has remitted its 2019 and 2020 regulatory
assessment fees.
Since B&C receives no compensation for the water it
provides, it no longer meets the definition of a utility as provided in Section
367.021(12), F.S. Therefore, Certificate No. 626-W should be canceled effective
the date the order becomes final.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed
by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance
of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed.
(Schrader)
Staff Analysis:
If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed
by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance
of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be
closed.
