IID wins mostly favorable ruling in Abatti appeal

IMPERIAL — Imperial Irrigation District finally got an answer on its nearly 3-year-old appeal of the county Superior Court ruling in the suit filed by local farmer and former Director Michael Abatti, and it was mostly good news.

Justices of the Fourth Court of Appeals Thursday morning issued a split ruling, but IID considered the overall decision a victory. IID concluded the ruling supports its stance on who owns the water rights and the equitable right of all water users.

Governmental Affairs and Communication Officer Antonio Ortega said the biggest issue in the ruling to the district was the water rights.

“The appeals court agreed with the IID that it is the district that holds these rights,” he said. “Overall, we feel this was a favorable decision for the district.”

“This is a historic decision by the court of appeals whose ruling affirms IID’s position that the district is the water rights holder for Imperial Valley, and that there is no privileged class of water users,” said IID Board President Norma Sierra Galindo. “Furthermore, agricultural water users have the same rights to service that all other water users do.”

Galindo pointed to a statement the justices made in their ruling in explaining their view of the case.

“We begin with Abatti, who makes a number of arguments to support his view of farmer’s rights. None has merit,” the justices wrote.

That statement by the justices, she said, speaks volumes on the lawsuit in general.

She said IID is the legal fiduciary to distribute the water equally to all parties.

In the portion of ruling in favor of Abatti, the court said IID did abuse its discretion in how to prioritize apportionment among categories of water users in the 2013 Equitable Distribution Plan.

Galindo conceded the program will have to be fixed.

The conclusion of the ruling dismissed the claims against IID’s fiduciary duty.

“In a nutshell we won,” she said.

IID Director Bruce Kuhn, who voted for the EDP, said while the justices did make the decision that the water rights belong to the district, they also made it clear the farmers have a vested and legal right to have the service of water.

“It’s like a property right,” said Kuhn, who had to recuse himself from several IID votes pertaining to the lawsuit due to his friendship with the Abatti family.

The justices did con

clude the farmers within the district possess an equitable and beneficial interest in the district’s water rights, which is needed for their lands, and that this consists of a right to water service.

The justices ultimately reversed the Superior Court’s decision and directed the issue go back to the prior court

where the judgment can only be for the district’s failure to provide fair apportionment among water users, resulting in an “abuse of discretion.”

The IID had hoped their legal fees would have been ordered to be paid by Abatti, but the justices ruled both parties should bear their own costs for the appeal

process.

Kuhn and Galindo agreed the ruling is likely not to end the fight, as the case could be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Galindo said she thinks the opposition will not stop until they secure three of the five votes on the IID’s board.