Updated July 2020

IID's board approved a resolution repealing the EDP on February 6, 2018. IID water users will not be limited by an apportionment of water; however, in the absence of the EDP, all water users will continue to be subject to the requirement of reasonable and beneficial use standards. In addition, the district will continue to be subject to the 3.1 million acre-foot annual consumptive use cap set forth under the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the rules of the federal Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy.

Background
Facing the threat posed by the longest drought in a century for the Colorado River basin, IID adopted the Equitable Distribution Plan to manage its Colorado River water supply—its sole source of water for the entire Imperial Valley—in accordance with IID’s duty under Water Code section 22252 to distribute water “equitably as determined by the board.” (Wat. Code, § 22252).

The IID Board of Directors undertook extensive study and analysis beginning in 2004, eventually adopting an EDP in 2007, which was revised several times, most recently in October 2013. The revised EDP included a hybrid method of apportionment that had a historical use component and a straight-line component.  The lawsuit by Michael Abatti challenging the Equitable Distribution Plan adopted in October 2013 (Michael Abatti, et al. v. Imperial Irrigation District case No. ECU07980) was filed on November 27, 2013.

On August 15, 2017, Judge Brooks Anderholt issued a statement of decision in the case. A writ of mandate and a declaratory judgment were issued on August 25 and September 19, 2017, respectively. The writ of mandate, attached, directs IID to repeal the EDP. IID filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2017.

Mr. Abatti filed a notice of cross-appeal on October 16, 2017. Mr. Abatti sought an order from the appellate court to mandate the trial court to enforce its writ of mandate and declaratory judgment while the appeal on the merits is pending. In contrast, IID sought appellate court confirmation that a stay is in place pending the appeal on the merits of the case to maintain the status quo of implementation of the EDP with the hybrid method of apportionment, which has been in place since its adoption in 2013. On January 31, 2018, the appellate court issued two orders, denying both Abatti's and IID's writs. The net effect of the appellate court orders is that there is no stay and the court is not directed to pursue any enforcement of its writ of mandate and judgment.

The owner of the Imperial Valley’s water rights is the Imperial Irrigation District, and the owner of the IID is the people that it serves.

This is the core finding in the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 106-page decision regarding the matter of Michael Abatti, et al. v. Imperial Irrigation District, which was issued on July 16, 2020. But the three-judge panel went further in its unanimous decision to reverse the 2017 ruling by Imperial County Superior Court Judge Brooks Anderholt in favor of Abatti, who had sued the District over its 2013 Equitable Distribution Plan.

In the absence of an EDP, all IID water users continue to be subject to the requirement of reasonable and beneficial use of water under the California Constitution, Article X, section 2. IID continues to be subject to the 3.1 million acre-foot annual consumptive use cap under the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the rules of the federal Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, which set forth the limitations under which IID may exceed its annual consumptive use cap, including payback requirements, and the circumstances under which IID cannot exceed its annual consumptive use cap.

Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.

Acrobat Reader Windows Media Player Word Viewer Excel Viewer PowerPoint Viewer