IID ratepayers foot a hefty legal bill

IMPERIAL — Every year the Imperial Irrigation District is embroiled in legal actions that rack up millions in attorney fees and court costs.

These costs are paid from IID’s general fund, which is banked from the monthly rates on water and power customers pay.

Of all the legal actions in the last few years, nothing compares to the resources allocated in the case local farmer Mike Abatti filed against the IID over water rights back in October 2013.

To date the IID has spent close to $3 million on attorney fees and court costs on this case alone, and it could end up being much more.

IID Director Bruce Kuhn said the district really has only two pots of money — one for water and another for power or electricity — that are funded by ratepayers, so when the IID decides to defend itself or file a case on its own behalf, the money comes from one of these two services.

“At the end of the day, it comes from the ratepayers,” IID Board President Norma Sierra Galindo added, pointing out the district has fought against increasing rates in the past.

“With lawsuits and (high) labor where is the money going to come from?” she asked. “Some cases can be considered frivolous, but they never stop.”

She said there are people thinking about how they can take control of the water and have an independent plan for power.

“We have a lot of small lawsuits that we win most of the time,” Galindo said. “People look at the IID as a cash cow.”

The IID last week was not able to provide a total amount the district has spent on legal fees, but the Abatti lawsuit has cost several million dollars.

These lawsuits could range from something as small as someone slipping and falling on a sidewalk on or near IID property to a contentious backand-forth fight over water rights, Galindo said.

The Abatti litigation, now at a cost of about $3 million, will likely go a lot higher, as the California Supreme Court will soon decide whether to review an appellate court opinion that favored IID.

Abatti contends IID is liable for his court costs.

Galindo mentioned that when the stakes are high, IID looks at hiring topof-the-line attorneys, and while it’s much more expensive, the courts usually side with the district in these cases.

IID cannot recover attorney fees in the Abatti case because there is no legal statute authorizing it to recover attorney fees in the defense of its statutory discretion to adopt the Equitable Distribution Plan.

Galindo pointed out that the IID is not the one who filed a lawsuit in the Abatti case. It just had to respond after the original suit was filed and after Superior Court Judge L. Brooks Anderholt ruled in favor of Abatti in August 2017.

“We did have to defend ourselves,” she said.

At the appellate level in the Abatti lawsuit, the court overturned the trial court’s award to Abatti of his attorney fees and costs at the trial level.

The court ruled that both parties are to pay their own appellate court costs.

Regarding court costs in other cases, IID may seek recovery of these costs at the trial court level if directed by the board of directors.

Galindo said other entities have threatened to sue the IID, and the district is waiting to see if there are other lawsuits filed.

There are also specific laws that protect entities against frivolous lawsuits.

“We look closely at all cases,” said IID Public Information Officer Robert Schettler. “Any pursuit, however, depends on many factors and specifics that have to be met.”