Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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. 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, Grapevine and MV 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 $55,000,000 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 $65,000,000 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, 2015 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there are $18,085,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of cost during 2016 and future years. On January 2, 2016, improvement funds totaling $4,162,000 were distributed. 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 the 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, 2015. 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 Mountain Village at Tejon Ranch. 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. 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, an alleged representative of the federally-unrecognized "Kawaiisu Tribe" (collectively, “Robinson”) alleging, inter alia, that the Company does not hold legal title to the land within the MV 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. After Robinson’s complaints were thrice dismissed for failure to state a claim, Robinson 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. On August 7, 2012, the district 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 filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After some delays in the briefing and oral argument occasioned by Robinson’s counsel, oral argument was conducted on November 20, 2014 before Circuit Judges Thomas, Reinhardt and Christen. On June 22, 2015, the unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 20-page published decision affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of the Company and specifically finding that “[t]he district court properly determined that the Tribe "Kawaiisu Tribe" has no ownership interest in Tejon Ranch and that no reservation was established.” On August 6, 2015, Robinson filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing asking the Ninth Circuit panel to change its June 22, 2015 ruling or allow reargument of the case. Robinson did not also file a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. No response to the Petition for Rehearing by the panel was required or permitted unless ordered by the court. On September 2, 2015, the court panel issued a one-sentence Order stating that “Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing is denied.” The Company understands that, on or before a deadline of December 2, 2015, Robinson's counsel submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and that he was thereafter allowed approximately 60 days to correct the technical or format deficiencies in the document by re-filing a corrected Petition. Robinson's counsel timely refiled the corrected Petition on February 3, 2016, and the Supreme Court has docketed it. The defendants (including the Company) have waived their response to the Petition, though a response will be required only if requested by the Supreme Court. Robinson’s chances of prevailing with a petition for writ of certiorari are very small, the Company continues to believe that a negative outcome of this case is very 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 orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National. One order directs the Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation (or Lafarge), the current tenant National, and the Company to clean up groundwater contamination on the leased property. Lafarge and National installed a groundwater cleanup system in 2003 and that system continues to operate. National and Lafarge have consolidated, closed, and capped cement kiln dust piles located on land leased from the Company. A second order directs National, Lafarge, and the Company to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the cap. The Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with directives of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising out of their use of the leased premises. The Company believes that the matters described above are included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If 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 the first half of 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. In February 2015, more than 140 parties representing more than 99% of the current water use within the adjudication boundary agreed to a settlement. On March 4, 2015, the settling parties, including Tejon, submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution to the court for approval. On December 23, 2015, the court entered Judgment approving the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution. The Company’s water supply plan for the Centennial project anticipated reliance on, among other sources, a certain quantity of groundwater underlying the Company’s lands in the Antelope Valley. The Company’s allocation in the Judgment is consistent with that amount. Prior to the Judgment becoming final, on February 19 and 22, 2016, several parties, including the Willis Class and Phelan Pinon Hills CSD, filed notices of appeal from the Judgment. Notwithstanding the appeals, the parties with assistance from the Court have begun establishment of the Watermaster and administration of the Physical Solution, consistent with the Judgment. Summary and Status of Kern 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, or 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, or 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 Kern County Superior Court on July 2, 2010, 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. This lawsuit has since been moved to the Sacramento Superior Court. Another lawsuit was filed in Kern County Superior Court on June 3, 2010, by two districts adjacent to the KWB, namely Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista Water Storage Districts, or Rosedale, asserting that the remedial EIR did not adequately evaluate potential impacts arising from 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. This lawsuit has since been moved to the Sacramento Superior Court. 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, the doctrine of laches, and by the annual validating statute. The substantive hearing on the challenges to the EIR was held on January 31, 2014. On March 5, 2014 the court issued a decision, rejecting all of Central Delta’s California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, claims, except the Rosedale claim, joined by Central Delta, 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 Rosedale. The writ of mandate, as revised by the court, requires DWR to certify the revised EIR by June 30, 2016. DWR is proceeding to prepare the revised EIR. 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 of mandate. Central Delta has appealed the judgment and the KWBA and certain other parties have filed a cross-appeal with regard to certain defenses to the CEQA cause of action. The appeals are pending in the California Court of Appeal. 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. From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including actions relating to employee claims, environmental law issues, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.

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. 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, Grapevine and MV 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 $55,000,000 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 $65,000,000 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, 2015 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there are $18,085,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of cost during 2016 and future years. On January 2, 2016, improvement funds totaling $4,162,000 were distributed. 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 the 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, 2015.

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 Mountain Village at Tejon Ranch. 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.

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, an alleged representative of the federally-unrecognized "Kawaiisu Tribe" (collectively, “Robinson”) alleging, inter alia, that the Company does not hold legal title to the land within the MV 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.

After Robinson’s complaints were thrice dismissed for failure to state a claim, Robinson 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. On August 7, 2012, the district 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 filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After some delays in the briefing and oral argument occasioned by Robinson’s counsel, oral argument was conducted on November 20, 2014 before Circuit Judges Thomas, Reinhardt and Christen. On June 22, 2015, the unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 20-page published decision affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of the Company and specifically finding that “[t]he district court properly determined that the Tribe "Kawaiisu Tribe" has no ownership interest in Tejon Ranch and that no reservation was established.”

On August 6, 2015, Robinson filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing asking the Ninth Circuit panel to change its June 22, 2015 ruling or allow reargument of the case. Robinson did not also file a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. No response to the Petition for Rehearing by the panel was required or permitted unless ordered by the court. On September 2, 2015, the court panel issued a one-sentence Order stating that “Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing is denied.” The Company understands that, on or before a deadline of December 2, 2015, Robinson's counsel submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and that he was thereafter allowed approximately 60 days to correct the technical or format deficiencies in the document by re-filing a corrected Petition. Robinson's counsel timely refiled the corrected Petition on February 3, 2016, and the Supreme Court has docketed it. The defendants (including the Company) have waived their response to the Petition, though a response will be required only if requested by the Supreme Court. Robinson’s chances of prevailing with a petition for writ of certiorari are very small, the Company continues to believe that a negative outcome of this case is very 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 orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National.

One order directs the Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation (or Lafarge), the current tenant National, and the Company to clean up groundwater contamination on the leased property. Lafarge and National installed a groundwater cleanup system in 2003 and that system continues to operate. National and Lafarge have consolidated, closed, and capped cement kiln dust piles located on land leased from the Company. A second order directs National, Lafarge, and the Company to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the cap.

The Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with directives of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising out of their use of the leased premises. The Company believes that the matters described above are included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If 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 the first half of 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. In February 2015, more than 140 parties representing more than 99% of the current water use within the adjudication boundary agreed to a settlement. On March 4, 2015, the settling parties, including Tejon, submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution to the court for approval. On December 23, 2015, the court entered Judgment approving the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution. The Company’s water supply plan for the Centennial project anticipated reliance on, among other sources, a certain quantity of groundwater underlying the Company’s lands in the Antelope Valley. The Company’s allocation in the Judgment is consistent with that amount. Prior to the Judgment becoming final, on February 19 and 22, 2016, several parties, including the Willis Class and Phelan Pinon Hills CSD, filed notices of appeal from the Judgment. Notwithstanding the appeals, the parties with assistance from the Court have begun establishment of the Watermaster and administration of the Physical Solution, consistent with the Judgment.

Summary and Status of Kern 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, or 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, or 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 Kern County Superior Court on July 2, 2010, 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. This lawsuit has since been moved to the Sacramento Superior Court. Another lawsuit was filed in Kern County Superior Court on June 3, 2010, by two districts adjacent to the KWB, namely Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista Water Storage Districts, or Rosedale, asserting that the remedial EIR did not adequately evaluate potential impacts arising from 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. This lawsuit has since been moved to the Sacramento Superior Court. 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, the doctrine of laches, and by the annual validating statute. The substantive hearing on the challenges to the EIR was held on January 31, 2014. On March 5, 2014 the court issued a decision, rejecting all of Central Delta’s California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, claims, except the Rosedale claim, joined by Central Delta, 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 Rosedale. The writ of mandate, as revised by the court, requires DWR to certify the revised EIR by June 30, 2016. DWR is proceeding to prepare the revised EIR. 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 of mandate. Central Delta has appealed the judgment and the KWBA and certain other parties have filed a cross-appeal with regard to certain defenses to the CEQA cause of action. The appeals are pending in the California Court of Appeal.

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.

From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including actions relating to employee claims, environmental law issues, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies.

The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.