IID files opposition in California Supreme Court battle with farmer Michael Abatti

The years-long fight between the Imperial Irrigation District and farmer Michael Abatti over control of Colorado River water could be nearing its grand finale in the California Supreme Court. After Abatti requested last month that the state's highest judicial body take up his case, the water district filed its opposition on Monday.

Originally filed in 2013, the case began with the claim that farmers were treated unfairly in a plan IID created that would dole out scarce water during times of drought or other low flow. But that issue was largely settled, and a more important question emerged when the trial court judge said farmers had a constitutionally protected right to water.

If that point holds, it would hand more power to a small number of landowners in the Imperial Valley and upend a balance in which IID has long controlled and distributed water. The district is the single largest user of water on the Colorado River and is allowed to divert several million acre feet per year. It delivers water to nearly 500,000 acres, the vast majority of that being agricultural fields.

A three-judge panel at the appellate level threw out farmers' newly formed right as well as an attempt to appeal at the same level. Abatti and his legal team then turned to the state's apex court, where the chance that their case is heard is slim. If it is not taken up, the appellate court decision will stand.

The California Supreme Court typically declines to hear about 95% of the cases sent its way.

That's exactly what IID wants, and in its Monday filing, its attorneys wrote that Abatti's lawsuit is looking to "sanction a power grab sponsored by large agricultural enterprises like Petitioners to secure an unlawful entitlement to natural resources at the expense of all other water users within the Imperial Valley. The Petition should be denied."

In requesting that the court take the case, Abatti's team wrote in August that the previous ruling — in which the appellate court said farmers have a right to water service but IID actually manages the water — was at odds with a four-decades-old U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bryant v. Yellen, which dealt with questions of irrigation, as well.

Abatti's lawyers claimed that the appellate decision "will have adverse consequences on water planning, water markets, and agricultural water conservation programs statewide, because they rely upon irrigating landowners possessing definable rights to water on their lands that may be transferred, sold, or credited."

IID has spent millions fighting the case brought by one of its own former directors and wants Abatti's request denied. The district claimed the legal question is now "undisputed" that it is the "sole owner of the water rights used to supply water to the Imperial Valley from the Colorado River."

The court has 60 days from the date the petition for review was filed — Aug. 24 — to decide whether to hear it.

Mark Olalde covers the environment for The Desert Sun. Get in touch at molalde@gannett.com, and follow him on Twitter at @MarkOlalde.