COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company's land is subject to water contracts with minimum future annual payments of approximately $7,900,000 per year, based on payments due in 2015. These estimated water contract payments consist of SWP, contracts with Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, Tejon-Castac Water District, or TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Dudley-Ridge Water Storage District and the Nickel water contract. These contracts for the supply of future water run through 2035 and 2044. The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District and Dudley-Ridge Water Storage District SWP contracts have now been transferred to AVEK, for our use in the Antelope Valley. Beginning in 2014, payments related to these contracts are now paid to AVEK. As discussed in Note 6 (Long Term Water Assets) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statement, we purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel Family, LLC, and obligates us to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually starting in 2014 and running through 2044.

The Company is obligated to make payments of approximately $800,000 per year to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy as prescribed in the Conservation Agreement we entered into with five major environmental organizations in 2008. Our advances to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy are dependent on the occurrence of certain events and their timing, and are therefore subject to change in amount and period. These amounts are recorded in construction in progress for the Centennial and TMV projects.

The Company exited a consulting contract during the second quarter of 2014 related to the Grapevine Development and is obligated to pay an earned incentive fee at the time of successful receipt of project entitlements and at a value measurement date five-years after entitlements have been achieved for Grapevine. The final amount of the incentive fees will not be finalized until the future payment dates. The Company believes that net savings from exiting the contract over this future time period will more than offset the incentive payment costs.

The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs, the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $28,620,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $39,750,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $80,250,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future.

In connection with the sale of bonds there is a standby letter of credit for $5,426,000 related to the issuance of East CFD bonds. The standby letter of credit is in place to provide additional credit enhancement and cover approximately two year's worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest land owner in the CFD, fails to make its property tax payments. The Company believes that the letter of credit will never be drawn upon. The letter of credit is for two years and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $83,000.

The Company is obligated, as a landowner in each CFD, to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure related to the TRCC West development. At December 31, 2014 there are no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there were $4,971,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of cost during 2014 and future years. The remaining improvement funds in the East CFD were distributed in January 2015. During 2014, the Company paid approximately $933,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time because it is based on current tax rate and the assessed value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company is not required to recognize an obligation at December 31, 2014.

In July 2014, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Sue, or Notice, dated July 17, 2014 indicating that the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wishtoyo Foundation and Dee Dominguez intend to initiate a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or USFWS, under the federal Endangered Species Act challenging USFWS's approval of Tejon Ranchcorp's Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, or TUMSHCP, and USFWS's issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, or ITP, to Tejon Ranchcorp for the take of federally listed species. The foregoing approvals authorize, among other things, removal of California condor habitat associated with Tejon Ranchcorp's potential future development of Tejon Mountain Village. No lawsuit has been filed at this time. It is not possible to predict whether any lawsuit will actually be filed or whether the Company or Tejon Ranchcorp will incur any damages from such a lawsuit.

Tejon Mountain Village

On November 10, 2009, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno division) by David Laughing Horse Robinson, or the plaintiff, an alleged representative of the federally-unrecognized "Kawaiisu Tribe" alleging, inter alia, that the Company does not hold legal title to the land within the Tejon Mountain Village, or TMV development that it seeks to develop. The grounds for the federal lawsuit were the subject of a United States Supreme Court decision in 1924 where the United States Supreme Court found against the Indian tribes. The suit named as defendants the Company, two affiliates (Tejon Mountain Village, LLC and Tejon Ranchcorp), the County of Kern, or the County, and Ken Salazar, in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. On January 24, 2011, the Company received a ruling by Judge Wanger dismissing all claims against the Company, TMV, the County and Ken Salazar. However, the judge did grant a limited right by the plaintiff to amend certain causes of action in the complaint.

During April, 2011, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint against the Company, alleging similar items as in the original suit. The plaintiff filed new materials during July, 2011 related to his second amended complaint. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge McAuliffe. On January 18, 2012, Judge McAuliffe issued an order dismissing all claims in the plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and/or for lack of jurisdiction, but allowing the plaintiff one more opportunity to state certain land claims provided the plaintiff file an amended complaint on or before February 17, 2012. The court also indicated that it was considering dismissing the case due to the lack of federal recognition of the "Kawaiisu Tribe". The court then granted the plaintiff an extension until March 19, 2012 to file his third amended complaint.

The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on March 19, 2012. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the third amended complaint without further leave to amend on April 30, 2012. The plaintiff thereafter substituted in new counsel and with leave of court filed his opposition papers on June 8, 2012. The defendants filed their reply papers on June 22, 2012. Oral argument of the motions to dismiss the third amended complaint was conducted on July 20, 2012. On August 7, 2012, the court issued its Order dismissing all of Robinson's claims without leave to amend and with prejudice, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

On September 24, 2012, Robinson (through another new counsel) filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its time schedule order calling for briefing to be completed by February, 2013. Robinson's brief was due to be filed on January 2, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute including failure to file an opening brief. Forty-five days later, Robinson's counsel filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. As an excuse Robinson’s new counsel offered that he overlooked the court of appeal's briefing schedule order and assumed that state court procedure would be followed. The motion to reinstate the appeal was accompanied by a proposed opening brief. In response, the Company and the County filed oppositions to the motion to reinstate the appeal. Despite objections by the Company and the County (in which the U.S. Department of Justice, or the DOJ, did not join), the Ninth Circuit granted Robinson's motion to reinstate, rejected the appeal of that reinstatement decision by the County and the Company, and set a due date of July 7, 2013 for the opposition briefs of the Company and the County to be filed. Thereafter, the DOJ and the County exercised their right to obtain an automatic 30-day extension to August 6, 2013, and the Company filed an unopposed motion (which the Ninth Circuit granted) extending the Company's date for its opposition brief to August 6, 2013 as well. Thereafter, the DOJ requested and obtained further extensions of time to file its answering brief, first to August 27, 2013, and finally to September 17, 2013. The Company filed its answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record on August 27, 2013. The County and the DOJ both filed their answering briefs on September 17, 2013. Both the Company and the County (but not the DOJ) included in their answering briefs the argument that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the plaintiff did not show the required extraordinary good cause for his failure to file his opening briefs. The plaintiff filed a short reply brief on November 4, 2013. The matter is now fully briefed. The Ninth Circuit initially scheduled an oral argument to occur on Wednesday, May 14, 2014, but counsel for Robinson filed a motion to continue the argument due to a scheduling conflict. A new oral argument was set for November 20, 2014 and was conducted as scheduled. Questions from the panel members seemed to indicate skepticism about Robinson's claims. No written opinion has been received yet, but it is anticipated that one will be received during the first half of 2015. In the meantime, the Company continues to believe that a negative outcome of this case is remote and the monetary impact of an adverse result, if any, cannot be estimated at this time.

National Cement

The Company leases land to National Cement Company of California Inc., or National, for the purpose of manufacturing Portland cement from limestone deposits on the leased acreage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or RWQCB, for the Lahontan Region issued several orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National:

(1)

Groundwater plume of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds. This order directs the Company’s former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, the current tenant National, and the Company to, among other things, clean up groundwater contamination on the leased property. In 2003, Lafarge and National installed a groundwater pump-and-treat system to clean up the groundwater. The Company is advised that Lafarge and National continue to operate the cleanup system and will continue to do so over the near-term.


(2)	Cement kiln dust. National and Lafarge have consolidated, closed and capped cement kiln dust piles located on land leased from the Company. An order of the RWQCB directs National, Lafarge and the Company to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the cap. Maintenance of the cap and groundwater monitoring remain as on-going activities.

To date, the Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with the orders or informal requests of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising directly or indirectly out of their use of the leased premises. The Company believes that all of the matters described above are included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations and that Lafarge and National have sufficient resources to perform any reasonably likely obligations relating to these matters. If they do not and the Company is required to perform the work at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material.

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases

On November 29, 2004, a conglomerate of public water suppliers filed a cross-complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a judicial determination of the rights to groundwater within the Antelope Valley basin, including the groundwater underlying the Company’s land near the Centennial project. Four phases of a multi-phase trial have been completed. Upon completion of the third phase, the court ruled that the groundwater basin is currently in overdraft and established a current total sustainable yield. The fourth phase of trial occurred in first half 2013 and resulted in confirmation of each party’s groundwater pumping for 2011 and 2012. The fifth phase of the trial commenced in February, 2014, and concerned 1) whether the United States has a federal reserved water right to basin groundwater, and 2) the rights to return flows from imported water. The court heard evidence on the federal reserve right but continued the trial on the return flow issues while most of the parties to the adjudication discussed a settlement, including rights to return flows. On March 4, 2015, an overwhelming majority of parties reached a settlement consisting of a proposed judgment and physical solution which is being submitted to the court for approval. The court is reserving a date in August 2015 to hear any objections before approving the settlement. Because the settlement is contingent on court approval and given the complex nature of the adjudication, at this time it is difficult to ascertain what the outcome of the court proceedings will be or whether an alternative settlement agreement will be reached and what effect, if any, this case may have on the Centennial project or the Company’s remaining lands in the Antelope Valley. Because the water supply plan for the Centennial project includes several sources of water in addition to groundwater underlying the Company’s lands, and because the creation of an efficient market for local water rights is frequently an outcome of adjudication proceedings, the Company remains hopeful that sufficient water to supply the Company's needs will continue to be available for its use regardless of the outcome of this case.

Water Bank Lawsuits

On June 3, 2010, the Central Delta and South Delta Water Agencies and several environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively Central Delta), filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court against the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Kern County Water Agency and a number of “real parties in interest,” including the Company and TCWD. The lawsuit challenges certain amendments to the SWP contracts that were originally approved in 1995, known as the “Monterey Amendments.” The original Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the Monterey Amendments was determined to be insufficient in an earlier lawsuit. The current lawsuit principally (i) challenges the adequacy of the remedial EIR that DWR prepared as a result of the original lawsuit and (ii) challenges the validity of the Monterey Amendments on various grounds, including the transfer of the Kern Water Bank, or KWB, from DWR to the Kern County Water Agency and in turn to the Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA), whose members are various Kern and Kings County interests, including TCWD, which TCWD has a 2% interest in the KWBA. A parallel lawsuit was also filed by Central Delta in Sacramento Superior Court against Kern County Water Agency, also naming the Company and TCWD as real parties in interest, which has been stayed pending the outcome of the other action against DWR. The Company is named on the ground that it “controls” TCWD. Another lawsuit was filed in Sacramento by two districts adjacent to the KWB, namely Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista Water Storage Districts (Rosedale), which is before the same court, asserting that the remedial EIR did not adequately evaluate potential impacts arising from future operations of the KWB, but this lawsuit did not name the Company, only TCWD. TCWD has a contract right for water stored in the KWB and rights to recharge and withdraw water. In an initial favorable ruling on January 25, 2013, the Court determined that the challenges to the validity of the Monterey Amendments, including the transfer of the KWB, were not timely and were barred by the statutes of limitation and doctrine of the laches. The substantive hearing on the challenges to the EIR was held on January 31, 2014. On March 5, 2014 the court issued a lengthy decision, rejecting all of Central Delta’s California Environmental Quality Act claims, except the Rosedale claims joined by Central Delta, essentially joined claiming that the EIR did not adequately evaluate future impacts from operation of the KWB, in particular potential impacts on groundwater and water quality. On November 24, 2014 the Court issued a writ of mandate that requires DWR to prepare a revised EIR regarding the Monterey Amendments evaluating the potential operational impacts of the KWB. The writ authorizes the continued operation of the KWB pending completion of the revised EIR subject to certain conditions including those described in an interim operating plan negotiated between the KWBA and the Rosedale plaintiffs. We are uncertain as to whether in the future the writ of mandate or the revised EIR could result in some curtailment in KWBA operations. To the extent there may be an adverse outcome on the claims, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time. On November 24, 2014 the Court entered a judgment in the Central Delta case (1) dismissing the challenges to the validity of the Monterey Amendments and the transfer of the KWB in their entirety and (2) granting in part, and denying, in part, the CEQA petition for writ mandate. Central Delta has appealed the judgment and the Kern Water Bank Authority and certain other parties have filed a cross-appeal with regard to the CEQA cause of action. On December 3, 2014 the Court entered judgment in the Rosedale case (i) in favor of the Rosedale parties in the CEQA cause of action, and (ii) dismissing the declaratory relief cause of action. No appeal of the Rosedale judgment has been filed.