Apple Valley presses water-system acquisition as residents cite high rates; legal fight continues

Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif said the town began pursuing acquisition of the Apple Valley water system because residents had faced "significant higher water rates compared to our neighboring communities," and some households, particularly those on fixed incomes, were struggling to pay water bills.

The remarks came during public comment on the Town Council's regular meeting. Resident Carrie Hernard told the council she opposed the town's efforts to acquire Liberty Utilities, citing what she called a string of local property and code‑enforcement problems and noting recent town payments to outside counsel and consultants.

"We had to act," Mayor Scott Nassif said, describing the decision to pursue acquisition after hearing accounts of residents who moved or considered moving because of water costs and after reports from local realtors that higher water costs were making homes harder to sell.

The mayor told the council that, since the town started the acquisition process, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved another rate increase for Liberty Utilities. He cited an advice letter filed by Liberty in November 2015 that listed an impact of $4,499,100, a 25.27 percent increase, as part of his account of the company's long‑term rate history.

Town staff advised the council in closed session that the town prevailed at the Court of Appeal in its case against Liberty Utilities, but the matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court. The council reported no reportable action after returning from closed session.

Public comment included a resident's statement that the town recently approved a 20 percent increase in consultant retainer fees, a $17,000 payment, and other spending the speaker said made pursuing a water acquisition difficult to reconcile with local maintenance concerns. Those statements were made as part of public comment and were not followed by formal council action at the meeting.

The meeting record shows the town continues the acquisition process and the related court proceedings are ongoing at the state high court, leaving final legal and operational outcomes unresolved.

The council did not vote on any new acquisition actions at the meeting; the closed session update was informational and no reportable action was announced.

Ending: The town's pursuit of the water system and the pending legal appeals leave the public and council watching for further developments; the town will return the matter to a future public agenda as court and acquisition processes proceed.