Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions

Under the 2009 Order, Cal Am is required, among other things, to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. The 2009 Order responded to claims that Cal Am had not sufficiently implemented actions to terminate its unpermitted diversions of water from the Carmel River as required by a 1995 SWRCB order. In July 2016, at the request of Cal Am and several Monterey County government agencies, the SWRCB issued the 2016 Order approving a five-year extension of the deadline to comply with the 2009 Order, to December 31, 2021. In November 2016, the Water Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula, a citizens’ advocacy group, filed an action in Sacramento County Superior Court against the SWRCB and its board members, and naming Cal Am as the real party in interest, seeking to reverse the extension of the 2009 Order, to rescind the designation by the California Public Utilities Commission (the “CPUC”) of Cal Am as the public utility water provider to the Monterey Peninsula, and to appoint a receiver to oversee Cal Am’s compliance with the 2009 Order, with ultimate transfer to a public entity. In May 2017, Cal Am and the SWRCB filed demurrers to the action, and on June 12, 2017, the court entered an order sustaining those demurrers and dismissing the action with prejudice.

Regional Desalination Project Litigation

The Regional Desalination Project (the “RDP”) involved the construction of a desalination facility in the City of Marina, north of Monterey. The RDP was intended to, among other things, eliminate unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River as required under the 2009 Order. In December 2010, the CPUC approved the RDP, which was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”) among the Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”) and Cal Am. In 2011, due to a conflict of interest concerning a former member of MCWRA’s Board of Directors, MCWRA stated that the Agreements were void, and, as a result, Cal Am terminated the Agreements. In April 2015, the CPUC approved a settlement agreement among Cal Am, MCWRA and the County of Monterey to resolve these matters among the parties signing the agreement. In March 2016, the Supreme Court of California granted MCWD’s petition for review of the CPUC approval, and following the court’s disposition of a related issue in another case, MCWD’s petition for review of the CPUC-approved settlement agreement was remanded to the CPUC, and remains pending.

In October 2012, Cal Am filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief against MCWRA and MCWD, which was ultimately transferred to the San Francisco County Superior Court, seeking a determination as to whether the Agreements are void as a result of the alleged conflict of interest. In June 2015, the court entered a final judgment agreeing with Cal Am’s position that four of the five Agreements are void, and one, the credit line agreement, is not void. In November 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied MCWD’s final appeal of this judgment, which allows further proceedings to determine the amount of damages that may be awarded in the proceeding.

In July 2015, Cal Am and MCWRA filed a Complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against MCWD and RMC Water and Environment (“RMC”), a private engineering consulting firm, seeking to recover compensatory damages in excess of $10 million associated with the failure of the RDP, as well as punitive and treble damages, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. Shortly thereafter, complaints seeking similar damages were filed in the same court by MCWD and RMC against Cal Am and MCWRA in excess of $19 million in the aggregate. In December 2015, the court consolidated all of these complaints into a single action, and trial in this matter has been scheduled for June 18, 2018. On December 21, 2017, RMC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a hearing on such motion is scheduled for March 15, 2018. On December 6, 2017, MCWD filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a hearing on such motion took place on February 2, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the court dismissed Cal Am’s and MCWRA’s tort law claims against MCWD, and allowed Cal Am leave to amend its breach of contract claims against MCWD. The court’s decision does not impact Cal Am’s and MCWRA’s tort claims against RMC. Cal Am and MCWRA were given until February 19, 2018 to amend their breach of contract claims. Cal Am and MCWRA are considering their responses to the order, including an appeal to the California Court of Appeal.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

The Water Supply Project is intended to reduce water diversions from the Carmel River and involves construction of a desalination plant, owned by Cal Am, and purchase of water by Cal Am from a groundwater replenishment project (the “GWR Project”) between the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the MPWMD. Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is subject to extensive administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. On January 12, 2017, the CPUC issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. A final report is expected at the end of the first quarter of 2018.

On September 15, 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to $50 million in associated costs, subject to meeting certain criteria. If construction costs exceed $50 million, Cal Am would be allowed to seek additional cost recovery.

A preliminary step to building the Water Supply Project desalination plant is the construction and operation of a test slant well to confirm the suitability of the property on which intake wells will be located to draw water from under Monterey Bay. In November 2014, the California Coastal Commission (the “Coastal Commission”) approved coastal development permits for the test slant well, enabling Cal Am to construct and operate the test slant well. The permits would have expired on February 28, 2018, at which time Cal Am would have been required to decommission the test slant well, but because Cal Am could use the test slant well as one of the slant wells for the Water Supply Project, it sought an amendment of its coastal development permits to allow the test slant well to remain in place and be maintained on site until February 28, 2019. The Coastal Commission approved the permit amendment on December 13, 2017. The required lease obtained from the California State Lands Commission (the “State Lands Commission”), as amended, after a two-year extension granted on November 29, 2017, is to expire on December 16, 2019.

On July 13, 2017, the Coastal Commission adopted a consent agreement and cease and desist order requiring sand mining operations on the property on which intake wells will be located to cease by the end of 2020 and the property to be sold to either a non-profit or governmental entity. The consent agreement strictly limits future use of the property but preserves Cal Am’s existing property rights and allows uses consistent with existing easements and other rights of record.

The CPUC held hearings from October 25 through November 3, 2017 on Cal Am’s request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Water Supply Project. This request remains pending.

In December 2014, the MCWD and the Ag Land Trust, an agricultural land conservancy, filed petitions against the Coastal Commission and Cal Am, which were ultimately transferred to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, seeking to vacate the Coastal Commission’s approval of the coastal development permit and to permanently restrain Cal Am and the Coastal Commission from constructing the test slant well pending full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act. The court denied these petitions, and on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of California denied MCWD’s petition for review of this decision. MCWD filed a similar petition in January 2015 against the State Lands Commission and Cal Am, which remains pending.

In November 2015, MCWD filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against the Coastal Commission and Cal Am challenging the amendment of the coastal development permits and seeking an injunction against further test well pumping. In September 2016, the court denied MCWD’s petition with respect to all claims, except claims related to those raised in the December 2014 petitions discussed above. On October 3, 2017, after conducting a trial for all matters raised in MCWD’s November 2015 challenge, other than claims that had been denied by the court in September 2016, the court denied MCWD’s claims with respect to these matters. On January 12, 2018, MCWD filed a notice of appeal of the court’s judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Cal Am estimates that the earliest date by which the Water Supply Project desalination plant could be completed is sometime in 2021. There can be no assurance that Cal Am’s application for the Water Supply Project will be approved or that the Water Supply Project will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to comply with the diversion reduction requirements and other remaining requirements under the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order, or that any such compliance will not result in material additional costs or obligations to Cal Am or the Company.

California Public Utilities Commission Residential Rate Design Proceeding

In December 2016, the CPUC issued a final decision in a proceeding involving Cal Am adopting a new residential rate design for Cal Am’s Monterey District. The decision allowed for recovery by Cal Am of $32 million in under-collections in the water revenue adjustment mechanism/modified cost balancing account (“WRAM/MCBA”) over a five-year period, plus interest, and modified existing conservation and rationing plans. In its decision, the CPUC noted concern regarding Cal Am’s residential tariff administration, specifically regarding the lack of verification of customer-provided information about the number of residents per household. This information was used for generating billing determinants under the tiered rate system. As a result, the CPUC kept this proceeding open to address several issues, including whether Cal Am’s residential tariff administration violated a statute, rule or CPUC decision, and if so, whether a penalty should be imposed.

On February 24, 2017, Cal Am, the MPWMD, the CPUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses filed for CPUC approval of a joint settlement agreement (the “Joint Settlement Agreement”), which among other things, proposed to resolve the CPUC’s residential tariff administration concerns by providing for a waiver by Cal Am of $0.5 million of cost recovery for residential customers through the WRAM/MCBA in lieu of a penalty. Approval of the Joint Settlement Agreement, which is required for it to take effect, remains pending before the CPUC.

On March 28, 2017, the administrative law judge assigned to the proceeding issued a ruling stating there was sufficient evidence to conclude, on a preliminary basis, that Cal Am’s administration of the residential tariff violated certain provisions of the California Public Utilities Code and a CPUC decision. The ruling ordered Cal Am to show cause why it should not be penalized for these administrative violations and directed the settling parties to address whether the cost recovery waiver in the Joint Settlement Agreement was reasonable compared to a potential penalty range described by the administrative law judge. During hearings held on April 13-14, 2017, the administrative law judge clarified that this potential penalty range is $3 million to $179 million (calculated as a continuing violation dating back to 2000 and applying penalties of up to $20,000 per day until January 1, 2012 and penalties of up to $50,000 per day thereafter, reflecting a 2012 change to the relevant statute). The administrative law judge also noted that a per diem penalty may not be appropriate, as Cal Am’s monthly billing practices did not allow Cal Am to update customer-provided information for billing purposes on a daily basis. Hearings before the administrative law judge in this matter were held in August, September and November 2017. Cal Am also submitted additional testimony on the issue of whether Cal Am should be penalized, and if so, the reasonable amount of any such penalty. This proceeding remains pending, and the CPUC has set a statutory deadline of September 30, 2018 for the completion of the proceeding.

West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill

Background

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (“MCHM”), and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into the Elk River near the WVAWC treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to issue a “Do Not Use” order for all of its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties served by the Charleston treatment plant. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC’s customers were subject to the Do Not Use order.

Following the Freedom Industries chemical spill, numerous lawsuits were filed against WVAWC and certain other Company-affiliated entities (collectively, the “American Water Defendants”) with respect to this matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties, and to date, more than 70 cases remain pending. Four of the cases pending before the U.S. district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the “Federal action”) was filed in December 2014 by several plaintiffs. In January 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were referred to West Virginia’s Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings, which have been stayed until April 22, 2018 pending the approval by the court in the Federal action of a global agreement to settle all of such cases, as described below. The court in the Federal action has continued the start of the trial indefinitely pending ongoing settlement approval activities.

Proposed Global Class Action Settlement

In October 2016, the court in the Federal action approved the preliminary principles, terms and conditions of a binding global agreement in principle to settle claims among the American Water Defendants, and all class members, putative class members, claimants and potential claimants, arising out of the Freedom Industries chemical spill. On April 27, 2017, the parties filed with the court in the Federal action a proposed settlement agreement providing details of the terms of the settlement of these matters and requesting that the court in the Federal action grant preliminary approval of such settlement. On July 6, 2017, the court in the Federal action issued an opinion denying without prejudice the joint motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. On August 25, 2017, the parties filed a proposed amended settlement agreement and related materials addressing the matters set forth in the July 6, 2017 order.

On September 21, 2017, the court in the Federal action issued an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement class and proposed class action settlement (the “Settlement”) with respect to claims against the American Water Defendants by all putative class members (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) for all claims and potential claims arising out of the Freedom Industries chemical spill. The Settlement proposes a global resolution of all federal and state litigation and potential claims against the American Water Defendants and their insurers. Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement and the proposed amended settlement agreement, the American Water Defendants have not admitted, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in any of the actions to be resolved. Under federal class action rules, claimants had the right, until December 8, 2017, to elect to opt out of the final Settlement, in which case such claimant would not receive any benefit from or be bound by the terms of the Settlement. As of January 31, 2018, less than 100 of the 225,000 estimated putative Plaintiffs have submitted opt-out notices. The deadline to file a claim in the Settlement is February 21, 2018.

The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement with respect to the Company is $126 million. The aggregate portion of the Settlement to be contributed by WVAWC, net of insurance recoveries, is $43 million (approximately $26 million after-tax), taking into account the September 2017 settlement with one of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers discussed below. Another defendant to the Settlement is to contribute up to $25 million to the Settlement. Two of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers, which provide an aggregate of $50 million in insurance coverage to the Company under these policies, had been originally requested to participate in the Settlement at the time of the initial filing of the binding agreement in principle with the court in the Federal action, but did not agree to do so at that time. WVAWC filed a lawsuit against one of these carriers alleging that the carrier’s failure to agree to participate in the Settlement constituted a breach of contract. On September 19, 2017, the Company and the insurance carrier settled this lawsuit for $22 million, out of a maximum of $25 million in potential coverage under the terms of the relevant policy, in exchange for a full release by the Company and WVAWC of all claims against the insurance carrier related to the Freedom Industries chemical spill. WVAWC and the settling insurer have agreed to stay this litigation pending final approval of the Settlement. The Company and WVAWC continue to pursue vigorously their rights to insurance coverage for contributions by WVAWC to the Settlement in mandatory arbitration with the remaining non-participating carrier. This arbitration proceeding remains pending. Despite these efforts, the Company may not ultimately be successful in obtaining full or further reimbursement under this insurance policy for amounts that WVAWC may be required to contribute to the Settlement.

The proposed Settlement would establish a two-tier settlement fund for the payment of claims, comprised of (i) a simple claim fund, which is also referred to as the “guaranteed fund,” of $76 million, of which $29 million will be contributed by WVAWC, including insurance deductibles, and $47 million would be contributed by two of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers, and (ii) an individual review claim fund of up to $50 million, of which up to $14 million would be contributed by WVAWC and up to $36 million would be contributed by a number of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers. Separately, up to $25 million would be contributed to the guaranteed fund by another defendant to the Settlement. If any final approval order by the court in the Federal action with respect to the Settlement is appealed and such appeal would delay potential payment to claimants under the Settlement, WVAWC and the other defendant to the Settlement will contribute up to $50 million and $25 million, respectively, to the Settlement (not including, in the case of WVAWC, any contributions by the Company’s general liability insurance carriers which would not be made until such time as a final, non-appealable order is issued) into an escrow account during the pendency of such appeals. For certain claims, WVAWC and the other defendant to the Settlement may, in lieu of these escrowed contributions, make advance payments of such claims if agreed to by the parties. All administrative expenses of the Settlement and attorneys’ fees of class counsel related thereto would be paid from the funds designated to pay claims covered by the Settlement.

As a result of these events, in the third quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a charge to earnings, net of insurance receivables, of $65 million ($39 million after-tax). Additionally, in the third quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a benefit of $22 million ($13 million after-tax) as an additional insurance receivable reflecting the settlement with the insurance carrier described above. The Company intends to fund WVAWC’s contributions to the Settlement through existing sources of liquidity, although no contribution by WVAWC will be required unless and until the terms of the Settlement are finally approved by the court in the Federal action. Furthermore, under the terms of the Settlement, WVAWC has agreed that it will not seek rate recovery from the PSC for approximately $4 million in direct response costs expensed in 2014 by WVAWC relating to the Freedom Industries chemical spill as well as for amounts paid by WVAWC under the Settlement.

The Company’s insurance policies operate under a layered structure where coverage is generally provided in the upper layers after claims have exhausted lower layers of coverage. The $36 million to be contributed by a number of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers to the individual review claim fund, as noted above, is from higher layers of the insurance structure than the insurance carrier that was requested, but presently has not agreed, to participate in the Settlement. Any recovery by WVAWC or the Company from the remaining non-participating carrier would reimburse WVAWC for its contributions to the guaranteed fund.

Notice of the terms of the Settlement to members of the settlement class commenced on October 11, 2017. Following the notice period, on January 9, 2018, the court in the Federal action held a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement, which was continued on February 1, 2018 to address certain open matters. At this hearing, the court in the Federal action indicated that it intended to enter an order approving the Settlement, and the parties submitted a proposed order to the court on February 2, 2018.

There can be no assurance that the Settlement will not be amended further or that the court will provide its final approval as to any agreement negotiated between the parties reflecting the terms of the Settlement.

The American Water Defendants believe that WVAWC has responded appropriately to, and, other than through the Settlement, has no responsibility for, the Freedom Industries chemical spill, and that the American Water Defendants have valid, meritorious defenses to the lawsuits. Nevertheless, WVAWC and the Company are unable to predict the outcome of any lawsuit against the American Water Defendants brought or maintained by a claimant that has elected to opt out of the Settlement, and any such outcome or outcomes could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity and reputation.

Other Related Proceedings

Additionally, investigations were initiated with respect to the matter by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (the “CSB”), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, the West Virginia Attorney General, and the PSC. As a result of the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation, Freedom Industries and six former Freedom Industries employees (three of whom also were former owners of Freedom Industries), pled guilty to violations of the federal Clean Water Act. The PSC issued an order on June 15, 2017 concluding its investigation without requiring WVAWC to take any further action with respect to the matters covered by the general investigation.

The CSB is an independent investigatory agency with no regulatory mandate or ability to issue fines or citations; rather, the CSB can only issue recommendations for further action. In response to the Freedom Industries chemical spill, the CSB commenced an investigation shortly thereafter. In September 2016, the CSB issued and adopted its investigation report in which it recommended that the Company conduct additional source water protection activities. On April 4, 2017, the CSB indicated that the implementation by the Company of source water protection activities resolved the first two parts of the CSB’s recommendation. The CSB also noted that compliance by the Company with the third part of its recommendation is ongoing and that closure of this part is contingent upon completion of updated contingency planning for the Company’s water utilities outside of West Virginia. In light of public response to its original September 2016 investigation report, on May 11, 2017, the CSB issued a new version of this report. The primary substantive change addressed CSB’s factual evaluation of the duration and volume of contamination from the leaking tank, decreasing its estimate of the leak time but increasing the volume estimate by 10%. No substantive changes were made to the conclusions and recommendations in the original report.

On March 16, 2017, the Lincoln County (West Virginia) Commission (the “LCC”) passed a county ordinance entitled the “Lincoln County, WV Comprehensive Public Nuisance Investigation and Abatement Ordinance.” The ordinance establishes a mechanism that Lincoln County believes will allow it to pursue criminal or civil proceedings for the “public nuisance” it alleges was caused by the Freedom Industries chemical spill. On April 20, 2017, the LCC filed a complaint in Lincoln County state court against WVAWC and certain other defendants not affiliated with the Company, alleging that the Freedom Industries chemical spill caused a public nuisance in Lincoln County. The complaint seeks an injunction against WVAWC that would require the creation of various databases and public repositories of documents related to the Freedom Industries chemical spill, as well as further study and risk assessments regarding the alleged exposure of Lincoln County residents to the released chemicals. On June 12, 2017, the Mass Litigation Panel entered an order granting a motion to transfer this case to its jurisdiction and stayed the case consistent with the existing stay order. The LCC has elected to opt out of the Settlement. On January 26, 2018, the LCC filed a motion seeking to lift the stay imposed by the Mass Litigation Panel. This motion is pending. WVAWC believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest the claims and allegations raised in the complaint.

WVAWC and the Company are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing government investigations or actions or any legislative initiatives that might affect WVAWC’s water utility operations.

Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action Litigation

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of WVAWC’s West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar. The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure to up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored on July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. On October 12, 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ counts alleging statutory and common law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserts that the PSC, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules. This motion remains pending.

Contract Operations Group -- East Palo Alto Water System Voluntary Report

On April 10, 2017, AWE, the parent entity of the Company’s Contract Operations Group, voluntarily reported to the Division of Drinking Water of the SWRCB potential violations of the California Safe Drinking Water Act (the “CSDWA”) in connection with AWE’s operation of the City of East Palo Alto’s water distribution system. Upon the resignation of the system’s general manager in March 2017, AWE discovered that it may have operated the system without a properly certified operator for two years, the triennial LCR sampling was not completed, and the 2015 Consumer Confidence Report improperly reported data for lead and copper samples from the system’s upstream water provider. Promptly after discovering these issues, AWE engaged an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation and has reported the results of that investigation to the SWRCB.

On June 15, 2017, the SWRCB issued to AWE a citation that required AWE to, among other things: comply with regulations related to water operator certifications, lead and copper tap sampling requirements and the publishing of a Consumer Confidence Report; provide public notification of the LCR violation; and prepare a corrective action plan to evaluate the causes leading to these incidents and measures to be taken to prevent recurrence of future incidents. The citation did not impose on AWE any monetary penalties, but the SWRCB reserved the right to take additional enforcement action.

By letter dated October 4, 2017, the SWRCB advised AWE that it is in compliance with all of the directives and relevant statutory and administrative provisions specified in the SWRCB’s June 15, 2017 citation. While AWE has completed all required compliance activities with respect to the citation, the SWRCB has previously reserved the right to take additional enforcement action. In February 2018, the SWRCB referred this matter to the San Mateo County, California District Attorney’s office for further investigation. AWE continues to cooperate with the SWRCB, the City of East Palo Alto and the San Mateo County District Attorney regarding this matter. Proven violations of the CSDWA may result in civil and criminal penalties.

General

Periodically, the Company is involved in other proceedings or litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than those proceedings described in this Item 3—Legal Proceedings, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially affect its financial position or results of operations. However, litigation and other proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation and other proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.