Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company's land is subject to water contracts with minimum annual payments. During the first three quarters of 2018, the Company has paid approximately $10,282,000 relating to these water contracts and does not expect to make any additional payments in 2018. These 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. The SWP contracts run through 2035, and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. As discussed in Note 5 (Long-Term Water Assets), we purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel and obligates us to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually through the term of the contract. The Company is obligated to make payments of approximately $800,000 per year through 2021 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 real estate development for the Centennial, Grapevine and Mountain Village, or 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 litigated project entitlements and at a value measurement date five-years after litigated 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. For the development of the Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, or TRCC, 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 $4,468,000 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 years' worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest landowner 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 $68,000. 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 costs related to the TRCC-West development. At September 30, 2018 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there are $6,383,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during 2018 and future years. During 2018 the Company expects to pay approximately $2,570,000 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 September 30, 2018. In July 2014, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Sue, dated July 17, 2014 indicating that the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, 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 Ranchcorp's Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and USFWS's issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, to Ranchcorp for the take of federally-listed species. The foregoing approvals authorize, among other things, the removal of California condor habitat associated with Ranchcorp's potential future development of MV. 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 Ranchcorp will incur any damages from such a lawsuit. 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. The Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, and current tenant National, continue to remediate these environmental conditions consistent with the RWQCB orders. 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 remediation of environmental conditions is included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If the Company were required to remediate the environmental conditions at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material and there is no reasonable likelihood of continuing risk from this matter. 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 was 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 reserved 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 Community Services District, filed notices of appeal from the Judgment. The Appeal has been transferred from the Fourth Appellate District to the Fifth Appellate District. Appellate briefing is expected to occur during the fourth quarter of 2018 or first half of 2019. Notwithstanding the appeals, the parties with assistance from the Court have established the Watermaster Board, hired the Watermaster Engineer and Watermaster Legal Counsel, and begun administering 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 CBD (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. Petitioners in this action also sought to invalidate the 2010 environmental impact report (2010 EIR) regarding the Monterey Amendments prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, pertaining to the Kern Water Bank, or KWB. The trial court concluded that the 2010 EIR for the Monterey Amendments was insufficient with regard to the EIR's evaluation of the potential impacts of the operation of the KWB, particularly on groundwater and water quality and issued a writ of mandate that required DWR to prepare a remedial EIR. DWR approved a remedial EIR (the 2016 EIR). On October 21, 2016, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and some of the Central Delta petitioners filed a new lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court challenging the 2016 EIR. On October 2, 2017, the Sacramento County Superior Court dismissed the new lawsuit and discharged the writ of mandate relating to the 2016 EIR. The CFS petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court’s 2017 judgment. The Central Delta and CFS appeals are consolidated for hearing and are pending before the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The Central Delta and CFS lawsuits principally challenge (i) the adequacy of the 2010 EIR and 2016 EIR and (ii) validity of DWR’s form of CEQA approval of the Monterey Amendments following certification of the 2010 EIR and the 2016 EIR, and (iii) the validity of the Monterey Amendments on various grounds, including the transfer of the KWB lands, 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 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 County 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 2016 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 County Superior Court. In an initial favorable ruling on January 25, 2013, the court, in the Central Delta lawsuit, determined that the challenges to the validity of the Monterey Amendments, including the transfer of the KWB lands, 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 2010 EIR was held on January 31, 2014. On March 5, 2014 the court issued a decision, rejecting all of Central Delta’s CEQA, claims, except the Rosedale claim, joined by Central Delta, that the 2010 EIR did not adequately evaluate future impacts from operation of the KWB, in particular the potential impacts on groundwater and water quality. On November 24, 2014, the court issued a writ of mandate (the 2014 Writ) that required DWR to prepare a revised EIR regarding the Monterey Amendments evaluating the potential operational impacts of the KWB. The 2014 Writ authorized the continued operation of the KWB pending completion of the 2016 EIR subject to certain conditions, including those described in an interim operating plan negotiated between the KWBA and Rosedale. The 2014 Writ, as revised by the court, required DWR to certify the 2016 EIR and file the return to the 2014 Writ by September 28, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the Director of DWR (a) certified the 2016 EIR prepared by DWR, as in compliance with CEQA, (b) adopted findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program as required by CEQA, (c) made a new finding pertaining to carrying out the Monterey Amendments through continued use and operation of the KWB by the KWBA, and (d) caused a notice of determination to be filed with the Office of Planning and Resources of the State of California on September 22, 2016. On September 28, 2016, DWR filed with the Sacramento Superior Court its return to the 2014 Writ. 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 lands 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 Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. On December 3, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Rosedale case (i) in favor of Rosedale in the CEQA cause of action, and (ii) dismissing the declaratory relief cause of action. No appeal of the Rosedale judgment has been filed. Rosedale has stipulated to the discharge of the 2014 Writ. On October 21, 2016, the Central Delta petitioners and a new party, the CFS (CFS Petitioners), filed a new lawsuit (the CFS Petition) against DWR and naming a number of real parties in interest, including KWBA and TCWD (but not including the Company). The new lawsuit challenges DWR’s (i) certification of the Revised EIR, (ii) compliance with the 2014 Writ and CEQA, and (iii) finding concerning the continued use and operation of the KWB by KWBA. In response to a motion filed by the CFS Petitioners, on April 7, 2017, the Superior Court denied the CFS Petitioners’ motion to stay the Superior Court proceedings on the return to the 2014 Writ and CFS Petition pending the appeal in the Central Delta case. The Superior Court subsequently modified the 2014 Writ to authorize the KWBA to construct an additional 190 acres of recharge ponds within the KWB pending the court's consideration of DWR's return to the 2014 Writ and the petition in CFS vs DWR. On August 18, 2017, the Superior Court held a hearing on the return to the 2014 Writ and on the CFS Petition. On October 2, 2017, the Superior Court issued a ruling that the court shall deny the CFS Petition and shall discharge the 2014 Writ. CFS has appealed the Superior Court judgment denying the CFS Petition. The Third Appellate District of the Court of Appeal granted DWR’s motion to consolidate the CFS appeal, for hearing, with the pending appeals in the Central Delta case. Briefing on the appeal of the judgment regarding the CFS Petition is anticipated to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2018. To the extent there may be an adverse outcome of the claims still pending as described above, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time. Grapevine On December 6, 2016 the Kern County Board of Supervisors granted entitlement approval for the Grapevine project (described below). On January 5, 2017 the CBD, and the CFS, filed an action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA, against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors (collectively, the County) concerning the County’s granting of approvals for the Grapevine project, including certification of the final EIR and related findings; approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning maps; adoption of Specific Plan Amendment No. 155, Map No. 500; adoption of Special Plan No. 1, Map No. 202; exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 19; and adoption of a development agreement, among other associated approvals. The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ranchcorp, are named as real parties in interest in this action. The action alleges that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, traffic, water supply and hydrology, growth inducing impacts, failure to adequately consider project alternatives and to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR and failure to adequately describe the environmental setting and project description. On December 6, 2017, the County served a responsive pleading answering petitioners' allegations and denying that relief should be granted. Petitioners seek to invalidate the County's approval of the project, the environmental approvals and require the County to revise the environmental documentation. On July 27, 2018 the court held a hearing on the petitioners’ claims. At that hearing, the court rejected all of petitioners’ claims raised in the litigation, except petitioners’ claims that (i) the project description was inadequate and (ii) such inadequacy resulted in aspects of certain environmental impacts being improperly analyzed. As to the claims described in “(i)” and “(ii)” in the foregoing sentence, the court determined that the EIR was inadequate. In that regard, the court determined the Grapevine project description contained in the EIR allowed development to occur in the time and manner determined by the real parties in interest and, as a consequence, such development flexibility could result in the project’s internal capture rate (ICR) - the percent of vehicle trips remaining within the project - actually being lower than the projected ICR levels used in the EIR to analyze various environmental impacts. The court tentatively granted a writ of mandate ordering the County to prepare a supplemental EIR to address potential environmental effects resulting from the Grapevine project’s actual ICR being lower than projected in the EIR with respect to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public health and growth inducing impacts. The court did not issue a final ruling at the July 27, 2018 hearing, reserving the scope of the writ for further hearing. While the court initially set a February 15, 2019 hearing to consider and rule on what remedies it may impose as part of a final ruling, including whether to invalidate the Grapevine project approvals, the court subsequently at a September 21, 2018 case management conference advanced the remedy hearing to December 7, 2018. The parties will submit briefs to the court on their respective position as to what remedies should apply. Following the December 7, 2018 hearing, the court will then issue a final judgment issuing a writ of mandate and ordering whatever lawful remedy it deems appropriate. Following issuance of the final ruling, either party may appeal the court’s decision. Proceedings Incidental to Business From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including actions relating to employee claims, 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 annual payments. During the first three quarters of 2018, the Company has paid approximately $10,282,000 relating to these water contracts and does not expect to make any additional payments in 2018. These 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. The SWP contracts run through 2035, and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. As discussed in Note 5 (Long-Term Water Assets), we purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel and obligates us to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually through the term of the contract.

The Company is obligated to make payments of approximately $800,000 per year through 2021 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 real estate development for the Centennial, Grapevine and Mountain Village, or 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 litigated project entitlements and at a value measurement date five-years after litigated 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. For the development of the Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, or TRCC, 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 $4,468,000 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 years' worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest landowner 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 $68,000.

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 costs related to the TRCC-West development. At September 30, 2018 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there are $6,383,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during 2018 and future years. During 2018 the Company expects to pay approximately $2,570,000 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 September 30, 2018.

In July 2014, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Sue, dated July 17, 2014 indicating that the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, 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 Ranchcorp's Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and USFWS's issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, to Ranchcorp for the take of federally-listed species. The foregoing approvals authorize, among other things, the removal of California condor habitat associated with Ranchcorp's potential future development of MV. 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 Ranchcorp will incur any damages from such a lawsuit.

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.

The Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, and current tenant National, continue to remediate these environmental conditions consistent with the RWQCB orders.

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 remediation of environmental conditions is included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If the Company were required to remediate the environmental conditions at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material and there is no reasonable likelihood of continuing risk from this matter.

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 was 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 reserved 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 Community Services District, filed notices of appeal from the Judgment. The Appeal has been transferred from the Fourth Appellate District to the Fifth Appellate District.

Appellate briefing is expected to occur during the fourth quarter of 2018 or first half of 2019. Notwithstanding the appeals, the parties with assistance from the Court have established the Watermaster Board, hired the Watermaster Engineer and Watermaster Legal Counsel, and begun administering 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 CBD (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. Petitioners in this action also sought to invalidate the 2010 environmental impact report (2010 EIR) regarding the Monterey Amendments prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, pertaining to the Kern Water Bank, or KWB.

The trial court concluded that the 2010 EIR for the Monterey Amendments was insufficient with regard to the EIR's evaluation of the potential impacts of the operation of the KWB, particularly on groundwater and water quality and issued a writ of mandate that required DWR to prepare a remedial EIR. DWR approved a remedial EIR (the 2016 EIR).

On October 21, 2016, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and some of the Central Delta petitioners filed a new lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court challenging the 2016 EIR. On October 2, 2017, the Sacramento County Superior Court dismissed the new lawsuit and discharged the writ of mandate relating to the 2016 EIR. The CFS petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court’s 2017 judgment. The Central Delta and CFS appeals are consolidated for hearing and are pending before the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The Central Delta and CFS lawsuits principally challenge (i) the adequacy of the 2010 EIR and 2016 EIR and (ii) validity of DWR’s form of CEQA approval of the Monterey Amendments following certification of the 2010 EIR and the 2016 EIR, and (iii) the validity of the Monterey Amendments on various grounds, including the transfer of the KWB lands, 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 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 County 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 2016 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 County Superior Court. In an initial favorable ruling on January 25, 2013, the court, in the Central Delta lawsuit, determined that the challenges to the validity of the Monterey Amendments, including the transfer of the KWB lands, 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 2010 EIR was held on January 31, 2014. On March 5, 2014 the court issued a decision, rejecting all of Central Delta’s CEQA, claims, except the Rosedale claim, joined by Central Delta, that the 2010 EIR did not adequately evaluate future impacts from operation of the KWB, in particular the potential impacts on groundwater and water quality.

On November 24, 2014, the court issued a writ of mandate (the 2014 Writ) that required DWR to prepare a revised EIR regarding the Monterey Amendments evaluating the potential operational impacts of the KWB. The 2014 Writ authorized the continued operation of the KWB pending completion of the 2016 EIR subject to certain conditions, including those described in an interim operating plan negotiated between the KWBA and Rosedale. The 2014 Writ, as revised by the court, required DWR to certify the 2016 EIR and file the return to the 2014 Writ by September 28, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the Director of DWR (a) certified the 2016 EIR prepared by DWR, as in compliance with CEQA, (b) adopted findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program as required by CEQA, (c) made a new finding pertaining to carrying out the Monterey Amendments through continued use and operation of the KWB by the KWBA, and (d) caused a notice of determination to be filed with the Office of Planning and Resources of the State of California on September 22, 2016. On September 28, 2016, DWR filed with the Sacramento Superior Court its return to the 2014 Writ.

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 lands 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 Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal.

On December 3, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Rosedale case (i) in favor of Rosedale in the CEQA cause of action, and (ii) dismissing the declaratory relief cause of action. No appeal of the Rosedale judgment has been filed. Rosedale has stipulated to the discharge of the 2014 Writ.

On October 21, 2016, the Central Delta petitioners and a new party, the CFS (CFS Petitioners), filed a new lawsuit (the CFS Petition) against DWR and naming a number of real parties in interest, including KWBA and TCWD (but not including the Company). The new lawsuit challenges DWR’s (i) certification of the Revised EIR, (ii) compliance with the 2014 Writ and CEQA, and (iii) finding concerning the continued use and operation of the KWB by KWBA. In response to a motion filed by the CFS Petitioners, on April 7, 2017, the Superior Court denied the CFS Petitioners’ motion to stay the Superior Court proceedings on the return to the 2014 Writ and CFS Petition pending the appeal in the Central Delta case. The Superior Court subsequently modified the 2014 Writ to authorize the KWBA to construct an additional 190 acres of recharge ponds within the KWB pending the court's consideration of DWR's return to the 2014 Writ and the petition in CFS vs DWR. On August 18, 2017, the Superior Court held a hearing on the return to the 2014 Writ and on the CFS Petition. On October 2, 2017, the Superior Court issued a ruling that the court shall deny the CFS Petition and shall discharge the 2014 Writ. CFS has appealed the Superior Court judgment denying the CFS Petition. The Third Appellate District of the Court of Appeal granted DWR’s motion to consolidate the CFS appeal, for hearing, with the pending appeals in the Central Delta case. Briefing on the appeal of the judgment regarding the CFS Petition is anticipated to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2018.

To the extent there may be an adverse outcome of the claims still pending as described above, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time.

Grapevine

On December 6, 2016 the Kern County Board of Supervisors granted entitlement approval for the Grapevine project (described below). On January 5, 2017 the CBD, and the CFS, filed an action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA, against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors (collectively, the County) concerning the County’s granting of approvals for the Grapevine project, including certification of the final EIR and related findings; approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning maps; adoption of Specific Plan Amendment No. 155, Map No. 500; adoption of Special Plan No. 1, Map No. 202; exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 19; and adoption of a development agreement, among other associated approvals. The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ranchcorp, are named as real parties in interest in this action.

The action alleges that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, traffic, water supply and hydrology, growth inducing impacts, failure to adequately consider project alternatives and to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR and failure to adequately describe the environmental setting and project description. On December 6, 2017, the County served a responsive pleading answering petitioners' allegations and denying that relief should be granted. Petitioners seek to invalidate the County's approval of the project, the environmental approvals and require the County to revise the environmental documentation.

On July 27, 2018 the court held a hearing on the petitioners’ claims. At that hearing, the court rejected all of petitioners’ claims raised in the litigation, except petitioners’ claims that (i) the project description was inadequate and (ii) such inadequacy resulted in aspects of certain environmental impacts being improperly analyzed. As to the claims described in “(i)” and “(ii)” in the foregoing sentence, the court determined that the EIR was inadequate. In that regard, the court determined the Grapevine project description contained in the EIR allowed development to occur in the time and manner determined by the real parties in interest and, as a consequence, such development flexibility could result in the project’s internal capture rate (ICR) - the percent of vehicle trips remaining within the project - actually being lower than the projected ICR levels used in the EIR to analyze various environmental impacts.

The court tentatively granted a writ of mandate ordering the County to prepare a supplemental EIR to address potential environmental effects resulting from the Grapevine project’s actual ICR being lower than projected in the EIR with respect to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public health and growth inducing impacts. The court did not issue a final ruling at the July 27, 2018 hearing, reserving the scope of the writ for further hearing. While the court initially set a February 15, 2019 hearing to consider and rule on what remedies it may impose as part of a final ruling, including whether to invalidate the Grapevine project approvals, the court subsequently at a September 21, 2018 case management conference advanced the remedy hearing to December 7, 2018. The parties will submit briefs to the court on their respective position as to what remedies should apply. Following the December 7, 2018 hearing, the court will then issue a final judgment issuing a writ of mandate and ordering whatever lawful remedy it deems appropriate. Following issuance of the final ruling, either party may appeal the court’s decision.

Proceedings Incidental to Business

From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including actions relating to employee claims, 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.