Lawsuit fights water plan
By: David Steffen

Jimmy Abatti and other plaintiffs will challenge the Imperial Irrigation District in the local superior court Wednesday about IID’s water distribution during a shortage.

The case claims IID’s equitable distribution plan leaves farmers the “leftovers” of the water supply during times of shortage.

James Abatti, Ben Abatti, Ronald Leimgruber, Laura Leimgruber, Douglas Westmoreland, Steven Nickus and Filipe Irigoyen are the plaintiffs. Judge Jeffrey Jones will preside at the Superior Court of Imperial County at 8:30 a.m.

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION PLAN

The IID’s EDP determines how water will be distributed in the event of a water shortage. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Stephen Meyer of Downey Brand LLP in Sacramento, said IID failed to take potential environmental impacts into consideration.

He said IID should have obeyed the California Environmental Quality Act to evaluate any potential environmental effects.

“It’s our contention that they needed to comply with CEQA and prepare an environmental impact statement prior to the adoption of the equitable distribution plan regulation in December 2008,” Meyer said.

IID General Counsel Jeffrey Garber said IID filed a negative declaration, which states that there would not be enough of an environmental impact to warrant any further action. Meyer said it is not enough.

“IID contends negative declaration adopted in 2006 is sufficient, and we contend otherwise,” Meyer said.

Garber said the plaintiffs filed their case too late to challenge the EDP but they could challenge certain amendments.

EDP WATER DISTRIBUTION

According to the plaintiffs’ case brief, farmers would get the “leftovers” after municipal, industrial, feedlot dairy and environmental resources took the water — in that order — first. Their case brief also stated the EDP would encourage population growth by providing a “virtually unlimited” water supply.

“In brief, everyone else can go on using water in proportion to their prior practice, and the farmers only get the leftovers,” the case brief stated.

Garber said that the EDP would not deprive farmers of water. He said 98 percent of IID water use is agricultural and the remaining 2 percent would be rationed among the other water users.

GEOTHERMAL CONCERNS

Meyer said geothermal power, as an industrial water user, could use immense amounts of water and infringe on the agricultural water supply.

“It’s possible the amount of water involved could be quite significant,” Meyer said.

Citing IID estimates, Meyer said there were 2,000 megawatts of geothermal power within the IID. He said a 50-megawatt Ormat Technologies geothermal plant IID had contracted with consumed 6,800 acre-feet of water per year. Meyer said 40 such plants would meet the 2,000 megawatt goal and consume a total of 88 billion gallons of water annually.

Garber said flash geothermal plants, which predominate in the Valley, use 10 times less water. He also said IID would not necessarily develop all 2,000 estimated megawatts.

“No one has any idea how much water we’re going to use or how much power we’re going to tap,” he said.

Garber also said IID would regulate any geothermal water use.

IID Director John Pierre Menvielle said the Integrated Water Resource Plan would force geothermal plants to replenish the water they use.

“They will not be taking water away from agriculture,” Menvielle said.

MOTIVES?

Garber said the plaintiffs in the case seek to stifle any attempts at developing renewable energy in the Valley.

“They don’t want economic development because that could cause competition for water,” Garber said.

Menvielle said he agreed.

“They’re against pro-growth here in the Imperial Valley,” he said.

However, Meyer said the side effects are plausible and require a closer look.

“We’re not saying this will happen,” Meyer said. “We don’t know, but it certainly is a likely scenario that needs to be explored in an environmental impact statement.”