Abatti takes water rights case to the U.S. Supreme Court

IMPERIAL — The legal battle between a local farmer and the Imperial Irrigation District over water rights has reached the United States’ highest court.

In March, local farmer Mike Abatti petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appellate court ruling last year over water rights.

His attorneys wrote in the petition that the issue to be addressed is whether farmers in the Imperial Valley have federally protected water rights.

The questions raised by Abatti are whether the district can abrogate farmers’ water rights that it previously conceded, and whether Imperial Valley farmers have federally protected water rights under subsection 8 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. subsection 372.

The district, they wrote, asserted that it did and expressly disclaim ownership of the water rights itself.

The district is merely the trustee of water rights for landowners, who are the beneficial owners, and their beneficial interest is a constitutionally protected property right that is appurtenant to the land irrigated, according to the court filing.

In 2013, however, the district adopted an Equitable Distribution Plan that nullified the water rights of land-owning farmers, including petitioner Michael Abatti and his family.

When the Abatti’s challenged the 2013 EDP as a violation of those rights, the district asserted that landowners have no water rights at all, according to the petition request.

The appellate court affirmed an Imperial County Superior Court’s ruling that the EDP had to be redone.

The California Court of Appeal, however, reversed the Superior Court’s ruling on water rights, saying it held that the district is the sole owner of water rights in the Valley, and farmers do not have an appurtenant water right but rather are entitled merely to water service that is subject to modification by the district at its discretion.

In the request for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, Abatti’s attorneys wrote that although it is true that IID holds the legal title to the water rights, it holds this title in trust for the landowners.

The landowners own the beneficial interest. It is the individual landowner and not the district who puts the water to beneficial use, his attorneys stated.

Abatti’s writ states that in its merits brief, the district again argued that the farmers, not the district, own the water rights.

The Court of Appeals argues that the district, not the landowners, owns the decreed present perfected rights, and, therefore, the district can redistribute the water that is taken away from excess lands, attorneys H. Christopher Bartolomucci and Theodore A. Chester Jr. wrote.

This contention, the attorneys wrote, is untenable, both factually and legally.

“As a matter of California law, the district is merely the trustee of water rights for landowners, who are the beneficial owners, and their beneficial interest is a constitutionally protected property right which is appurtenant to the land irrigated,” Bartolomucci and Chester wrote in the filing.

They noted Imperial Valley’s agriculture is essential to the nation’s food supply. About twothirds of the vegetables eaten nationwide during the winter are grown in Imperial County.

IID Board President James Hanks said the board respects Abatti’s right to pursue resolution in this matter, and the directors have committed to meet their oath of office and fiduciary duties of care and loyalty as elected officials of the IID.

“While both parties hold steadfast to their positions on the matter, waiting for a decision whether the case will be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the IID plans to move forward in implementing an equitable distribution plan consistent with the Appellate Court decision while on a parallel path of preparation for defense,” Hanks said the statement.

IID Division 5 Director Norma Sierra Galindo said she does not expect the high court to take the case, but she conceded there is always a slim chance it will grant the request.