Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10: Commitments and Contingencies The Company is routinely involved in legal actions incident to the normal conduct of its business. At June 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $1,700 as probable costs and it is reasonably possible that additional losses could range up to $31,400 for these matters. For certain matters, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements recovered by plaintiffs in such claims or actions, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows, individually or in the aggregate. The Company enters into agreements for the provision of services to water and wastewater facilities for the United States military, municipalities and other customers. The Company’s military services agreements expire between 2051 and 2064 and have remaining performance commitments as measured by estimated remaining contract revenue of $2,264,137 at June 30, 2014. The military contracts are subject to customary termination provisions held by the U.S. Federal Government prior to the agreed upon contract expiration. The Company’s Operations and Maintenance agreements with municipalities and other customers expire between 2014 and 2048 and have remaining performance commitments as measured by estimated remaining contract revenue of $920,680 at June 30, 2014. Some of the Company’s long-term contracts to operate and maintain a municipality’s, federal government’s or other party’s water or wastewater treatment and delivery facilities include responsibility for certain maintenance for some of those facilities, in exchange for an annual fee. Unless specifically required to perform certain maintenance activities, the maintenance costs are recognized when the maintenance is performed. In addition to the reasonably possible amounts disclosed above, in September 2010, the Company declared an “impasse” in negotiations of its national benefits agreement with most of the labor unions representing employees in the Regulated Businesses. The prior agreement expired on July 31, 2010; however, negotiations did not produce a new agreement. The Company implemented its last, best and final offer on January 1, 2011 to enable the Company to provide health care coverage for its employees in accordance with terms of the offer. The unions challenged the Company’s right to implement its last, best, and final offer. In this regard, following the filing by the Utility Workers Union of America of an unfair labor practice charge, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against the Company in January 2012, claiming that the Company implemented the last, best and final offer without providing sufficient notice of the existence of a dispute with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a state mediation agency, and several state departments of labor, in violation of Section 8(d)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) and, therefore, the Company failed and refused to bargain with the union in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. The Company asserted that it did, in fact, provide sufficient notice under the circumstances pertaining to the negotiations. On October 16, 2012, the NLRB Administrative Law Judge hearing the matter ruled that, although the Company did provide sufficient notification to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, it did not provide notice to the state agencies, in violation of Section 8(d)(3) of the NLRA and, consequently, the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. The Administrative Law Judge ordered, among other things, that the Company cease and desist from implementing the terms of its last, best and final offer without complying with the requirements of Section 8(d)(3) of the NLRA and make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of the Company’s implementation of its last, best and final offer. In November 2012, the Company filed exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in order to obtain a review by the full NRLB. The NLRB delegated its authority in the proceeding to a three member panel, which decided, on July 31, 2014, to affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and order, subject to certain modifications, including the requirement that in addition to lump sum awards to make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of the Company’s implementation of its last, best and final offer, the Company must compensate the affected employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving the lump sum “make whole” payments. On August 1, 2014, the Company filed an appeal of the NLRB’s ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The “make whole” order, if upheld on appeal, would require the Company to provide back pay plus interest, from January 1, 2011 through the date of the final determination, as well as any applicable tax reimbursement. Based on current assumptions, the Company estimates that the cash impact could be up to the range of $3,500 to $4,500 per year (exclusive of any additional tax compensation payments), with the total impact dependent on the length of time the issue remains unresolved.

Note 10: Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is routinely involved in legal actions incident to the normal conduct of its business. At June 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $1,700 as probable costs and it is reasonably possible that additional losses could range up to $31,400 for these matters. For certain matters, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements recovered by plaintiffs in such claims or actions, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company enters into agreements for the provision of services to water and wastewater facilities for the United States military, municipalities and other customers. The Company’s military services agreements expire between 2051 and 2064 and have remaining performance commitments as measured by estimated remaining contract revenue of $2,264,137 at June 30, 2014. The military contracts are subject to customary termination provisions held by the U.S. Federal Government prior to the agreed upon contract expiration. The Company’s Operations and Maintenance agreements with municipalities and other customers expire between 2014 and 2048 and have remaining performance commitments as measured by estimated remaining contract revenue of $920,680 at June 30, 2014. Some of the Company’s long-term contracts to operate and maintain a municipality’s, federal government’s or other party’s water or wastewater treatment and delivery facilities include responsibility for certain maintenance for some of those facilities, in exchange for an annual fee. Unless specifically required to perform certain maintenance activities, the maintenance costs are recognized when the maintenance is performed.

In addition to the reasonably possible amounts disclosed above, in September 2010, the Company declared an “impasse” in negotiations of its national benefits agreement with most of the labor unions representing employees in the Regulated Businesses. The prior agreement expired on July 31, 2010; however, negotiations did not produce a new agreement. The Company implemented its last, best and final offer on January 1, 2011 to enable the Company to provide health care coverage for its employees in accordance with terms of the offer. The unions challenged the Company’s right to implement its last, best, and final offer. In this regard, following the filing by the Utility Workers Union of America of an unfair labor practice charge, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against the Company in January 2012, claiming that the Company implemented the last, best and final offer without providing sufficient notice of the existence of a dispute with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a state mediation agency, and several state departments of labor, in violation of Section 8(d)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) and, therefore, the Company failed and refused to bargain with the union in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. The Company asserted that it did, in fact, provide sufficient notice under the circumstances pertaining to the negotiations.

On October 16, 2012, the NLRB Administrative Law Judge hearing the matter ruled that, although the Company did provide sufficient notification to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, it did not provide notice to the state agencies, in violation of Section 8(d)(3) of the NLRA and, consequently, the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. The Administrative Law Judge ordered, among other things, that the Company cease and desist from implementing the terms of its last, best and final offer without complying with the requirements of Section 8(d)(3) of the NLRA and make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of the Company’s implementation of its last, best and final offer.

In November 2012, the Company filed exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in order to obtain a review by the full NRLB. The NLRB delegated its authority in the proceeding to a three member panel, which decided, on July 31, 2014, to affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and order, subject to certain modifications, including the requirement that in addition to lump sum awards to make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of the Company’s implementation of its last, best and final offer, the Company must compensate the affected employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving the lump sum “make whole” payments.

On August 1, 2014, the Company filed an appeal of the NLRB’s ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The “make whole” order, if upheld on appeal, would require the Company to provide back pay plus interest, from January 1, 2011 through the date of the final determination, as well as any applicable tax reimbursement. Based on current assumptions, the Company estimates that the cash impact could be up to the range of $3,500 to $4,500 per year (exclusive of any additional tax compensation payments), with the total impact dependent on the length of time the issue remains unresolved.