IID presses on with appeal of court ruling

Hoping to overturn an Imperial County Superior Court ruling it believes undermines its authority to distribute water among all users, the Imperial Irrigation District has filed an opening brief with an appeals court in Sacramento.

In August 2017, County Judge L. Brooks Anderholt ruled in favor of local farmer Michael Abatti, who sued the district in October 2013 over the board’s authority to implement a water allocation plan.

IID Equitable Distribution Plan incorporated historical water use and straight-line methodologies, but the court ruled historical use should be the only criteria in crafting a water allocation plan and directed the IID to repeal the EDP.

IID believes the court overstepped its authority by selecting a methodology to be used by the district, a decision the IID argues undermines the authority given its board under state law.

“This approach deprives the IID’s board of the crucial flexibility needed to manage the district’s own water supplies and directly violates the authority granted to irrigation districts by the Legislature in Water Code section 22252,” IID states on page 30 of its brief.

“Further, this method of apportioning water ignores the real possibility of increasing future demands or declining water supplies. Under the trial court’s ruling, the over 120-year-old statutory scheme providing discretion to irrigation districts to manage their water supplies in California will be decimated.”

As part of its opening brief to the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, IID also argues the lower court’s ruling undermines its role as trustee of the water rights for all water users within the district. It also argues the previous ruling interferes with the IID’s obligations under the quantification settlement agreement.

The 50-page brief was filed May 2 and was also included in the agenda for IID’s Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday. During the meeting, General Manager Kevin Kelley gave the board and the public an overview of the main points made by the district in its appeal.

A chief concern the district has with the ruling is related to the authority the board has to manage water for nonindustrial uses.

Kelley said the ruling gives preference agricultural users and would force IID to procure water from agricultural users in order to secure a supply of water for an industrial use. In its brief, the IID identified this as a legal error and as a reason to dismiss the case in its entirety.

“It was not the judge’s place to become the river master and usurp your authority,” Kelley said during Tuesday’s presentation regarding the specifications mandated by the trial court.

Board President Jim Hanks said the biggest reason to appeal the ruling is that if left to stand, the ruling would become case law and would trump statutory law, which would affect every irrigation district in the state.

Throughout discussion that has taken place through various board meetings, local farmers have urged the board either to withdraw the appeal or to seek a settlement with Abatti to avoid further litigation and risk a ruling that could be more detrimental, but no agricultural users spoke to the matter during Tuesday’s meeting.

For Hanks, the only way to reach settlement is if there is a willingness to vacate the trial court’s ruling, which to him doesn’t appear likely.

“I would advise everyone that it (an appeal) has been filed and is moving forward. At the end of the day, it’s time for a resolution to the concerns that we are addressing here,” Hanks said.

The members of the public who did speak did so to express support for filing an appeal. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representatives Daniel Machain and George Moses, along with Sterling Mayes of the Imperial County Building and Construction Trades Council told the board the appeal was the right decision.

“I want to commend the IID in taking this step and moving forward with the appeal. Industry is growing and not having the ability to create more work can hinder the steps we have taken over the years,” Machain said.

Kelley told the board he expects a resolution won’t be made by the court for more than a year, which will create a challenge for the district as to how to proceed with the allocation of water under the current court ruling.

“I don’t envy your task, but this will be the defining court case that IID has been involved in since the QSA,” Kelley said.