Published March 29, 2019.
To read this awesome editorial on the LA Times website please click here.
Published March 29, 2019.
To read this awesome editorial on the LA Times website please click here.
The following Op-Ed was published in the Desert Sun on March 30, 2019. You can read the opinion piece on the Desert Sun’s website by clicking here.
Valley Voice: Why this Drought Contingency Plan is no friend to the Salton Sea
Norma Sierra Galindo, Special to The Desert Sun Published 5:00 a.m. PT March 30, 2019
The March 26 opinion piece by Tom Buschatzke and 13 other Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan proponents to persuade the public that the DCP is good for the Salton Sea would have been better served – and made more believable – by a show of good faith rather than a show of force.
People who know the Salton Sea as an actual place, rather than a place on a map, can tell the difference.
That Buschatzke and his fellow river contractors would be defiantly for a plan that turns the Salton Sea into its first casualty is sad but unsurprising. For them, the Salton Sea was the final impediment on the road to the DCP, not the finish line.
But for the nongovernmental organizations that lent their names to the op-ed, the DCP sans Salton Sea is an awkward compromise they must feel the need to defend. That’s because the outstanding feature they share is that they are funding partners (read recipients) of the Walton Family Foundation,a private charitable organization led by the heirs to the Walmart fortune.
The Walton group was an early leading advocate of the DCP and, to be fair, has advocated on behalf of the Salton Sea, too. But now that IID has decided to stand with the sea and not with the DCP, the WFF and its satellite groups want to make sure the district stands alone.
The WFF used to be for the Salton Sea, before it was against it.
Foundation executives used to fly over it every so often, touching down long enough to commiserate with local officials on how best to meet the environmental challenges there. Now they perpetuate the myth that a DCP with or without IID will have zero impact on the sea, and they cite IID board minutes from 2018 to prove that we agree with them.
Of course, that was last year’s DCP that didn’t cut IID out of the deal and try to “disappear” the Salton Sea, a critical fact omitted from the op-ed that, in addition to being a distortion of the truth, renders the 2019 DCP a completely different project.
What makes it so distinct is the plan’s exclusive reliance on the seemingly inexhaustible water portfolio of the Metropolitan Water District, which might be fine when resources are plentiful, as they are now, but what about when they aren’t?
How likely is it that these good hydrological times that we are currently enjoying will last for the duration of the DCP – and what happens when they don’t?
And if the unthinkable does happen, as it so often does whenever there’s some tradeoff that involves historic river-sharing pacts and the Salton Sea, and MWD is casting about for nearly 2 million acre-feet of water to meet California’s storage obligations under the DCP, how will the sea fare when the only place to find that water is in the Imperial Valley?
Norma Sierra Galindo, vice president of the Imperial Irrigation District board of directors.
By TOM BODUS, Editor in Chief Imperial Valley Press
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
EL CENTRO — The Imperial County Board of Supervisors Tuesday responded to proposed bill in the California Assembly that would give Riverside County majority representation on the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors essentially with a hell no.
Actually, that’s precisely how District 3 Supervisor Michael Kelly expressed it shortly before the board voted unanimously to oppose Assembly Bill 854. The proposed legislation was introduced by Republican Chad Mayes on Feb. 20. It would add six seats to the IID Board of Directors, all of which would be filled by Riverside County in an election to be held in 2020.
Kelly did question whether IID shouldn’t consider another option, which is to drop power service to Riverside County altogether.
“I suggest IID just get out of the electricity business in Coachella Valley,” he said. “Turn it over to somebody else and see what they like about rates then.”
That’s not the first time that notion has come up in either a Board of Supervisors meeting or an IID meeting. When asked about that option, IID communications specialist Robert Schettler replied by emphasizing the position the district has held to from the start: “This is a serious matter for the IID and can only be seen as a direct attack on the authority of the IID Board and the water and energy rights it holds in trust and to which it is duty-bound to protect.”
Schettler noted the long-standing 1934 agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District, giving IID the right to serve energy to in Riverside County and for which IID pays Coachella Valley Water District 8 percent of its energy net proceeds. Those payments have totaled $45 million to date, he said.
Schettler also referred to a letter to Mayes on Feb. 27 from IID general counsel Frank Oswalt. It explained both districts about bound by federal law to honor the 1934 agreement.
“In short, IID has done nothing more than what is in the best interest of its residents and customers and fully authorized by federal and state law, which has been memorialized in contracts with several parties,” Oswalt said in the letter.
IID and Riverside County have been embroiled in a lawsuit filed by IID that would have required the utility to renew its net metering program in the county. In November 2018, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the county of Riverside from implementing the ordinance.
Mayes’ bill is largely seen as an extension of that conflict. Riverside County represents approximately 60 percent of IID’s electrical customer base, and the argument is that those ratepayers can’t vote in IID elections and have no voice in its decision-making.
However, the AB 854 would also give Riverside a majority voice in the district’s water management, and no one in Imperial County appears to be interested in yielding on that point.
On March 5, 2019, the Imperial County Building & Construction Trades sent a letter to Assemblymember Chad Mayes (R-Yucca Valley) asking him to reconsider AB 854, legislation he introduced that has several issues.
This is the letter in opposition of AB 854. If you agree that this piece of legislation is bad for the Imperial Valley contact Assemblymember Mayes, Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia and Senator Ben Hueso.
Below is a statement form the Imperial Irrigation District regarding legislation authored by Assemblymember Chad Mayes (R-Yucca Valley). Immediately after the statement is the five-page letter from IID General Counsel to the Assemblymember.
Imperial Irrigation District and the IID Board of Directors have proudly served and represented its valued customers in Imperial and Coachella valleys with some of the lowest energy rates in California.
Ten local residents from the IID service area in the Coachella Valley serve on IID’s Energy Consumers Advisory Committee, which meets monthly and advises the IID Board of Directors on energy matters.
The legislation introduced last week by Assemblyman Mayes is a serious matter for the IID and can only be seen as a direct attack on the authority of the IID Board and the water and energy rights it holds in trust and to which it is duty-bound to protect.
The district is concerned about the far-reaching impacts of this bill as well as the potential legal matters, which would surely ensue.
The IID Board is expected to discuss the matter during a special meeting Friday, March 1, and will be meeting with Assemblyman Mayes next week to discuss in greater detail.
As part of the long-standing compromise agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District to serve energy to the area, IID pays CVWD 8 percent of its energy net proceeds ($45 million to date), an additional benefit to the Coachella Valley.
Imperial County voters re-elected Norma Sierra Galindo to the Imperial Irrigation District’s board of directors, rejecting a bid from Carlos Zaragoza, who was backed by a handful of farmers seeking greater control over the region’s Colorado River water.
With all precincts reporting early Wednesday, Galindo had won 53 percent of the votes, compared to 47 percent for Zaragoza, a property tax consultant. Zaragoza declined to share his opinion on the Abatti lawsuit during the campaign, saying only that he would “support the law as determined by the courts.” He received at least $5,000 from farmers who had previously supported Imperial Valley First, a group that has fought IID over water rights and campaigned against sitting board members in several elections.
Zaragoza received $1,000 in campaign funds from Jimmy Abatti, Mike’s brother and the immediate past president of the Imperial County Farm Bureau, who has previously sued IID several times over its water policies. Zaragoza also got $1,000 each from farmers Kevin Grizzle, Mike Morgan, Jack Vessey and Doug Westmoreland. Separately, Morgan gave $5,000 to Imperial Valley First, which registered to campaign against Galindo.
The complete article can be accessed on the Desert Sun website by clicking here.
Riverside County Slammed by Judge Granting a Preliminary Injunction Requested by the Imperial Irrigation District…..In granting the injunction, the Judge found that the county’s ordinance conflicts with state law and, if enacted, would cause irreparable harm to the district, said Frank Oswalt, IID general counsel.
IID Also Believes Riverside Violated Brown Act
By IMPERIAL VALLEY PRESS STAFF
Nov. 7, 2018
LOS ANGELES — A County Superior Court judge here on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the county of Riverside from implementing an ordinance that, if enacted, would bypass the authority of the Imperial Irrigation District to set electric rates for its customers, according to an IID press release.
In granting the injunction, Judge Mary Strobel found that the county’s ordinance conflicts with state law and, if enacted, would cause irreparable harm to the district, Frank Oswalt, IID general counsel, reported.
Although no final rulings were made, Oswalt said the court determined that there was a likely probability that IID would prevail if the matter were fully contested, according to IID. Further, should the ordinance be enacted, the IID board and staff would be irreparably harmed by the prescribed criminal penalties in the ordinance, and the district harmed by the millions of dollars in unrecoverable costs to implement it, according to the district release.
In June, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance No. 943, which would have required IID to scrap its publicly vetted and board-adopted solar tariff, net-energy billing and create a new solar tariff that closely resembles that of a privately owned utility, Southern California Edison.
All this came at the request of a private business owner whose business is located in Riverside County and stands to directly benefit financially from the impacts of this ordinance, according to the IID. The district is referring to Renova Energy owner Vincent Battaglia.
“The notion that Riverside County would usurp IID’s ratemaking authority and adopt an ordinance that violates state law is inherently unreasonable and unprecedented,” said James Hanks, IID board president. “Today’s action by the court is a win for the district and its ratepayers.”
In making her ruling, Judge Strobel also noted several potential areas in which the county’s ordinance may conflict with the Public Utilities Act.
Among those areas are:
“First and most critically, section 2827 (of the Public Utilities Act) provides that a [public owned utility], such as the petitioner (IID), is not required to offer NEM (net-energy metering) programs beyond its 5 percent participation cap provided for under that statute,” the judge wrote. “The ordinance directly conflicts with this general law because it imposes NEM requirement on [IID] ‘as expansive’ as NEM 2.0, which does not have this participation cap.”
Second, the same section defines the ratemaking authority of a publicly owned utility as the board of that utility. “That board has the authority to determine when … the utility is not obligated to provide NEM to additional customer-generators. … The ordinance, in contrast, grants [Riverside County] the authority to regulate [IID’s] rates for NEM credits, and it purports to regulate [IID’s] NEM activities as if it were an [investor-owned utility] under the ratemaking authority of the [California Public Utilities Commission],” the judge wrote in her decision.
Riverside County officials did not comment when contacted by the Imperial Valley Press.
Recently, IID alleged Riverside County was in violation of California’s open meetings law, the Brown Act, when Riverside officials “lined up votes” outside of the public’s purview on Ordinance 943.
What’s more, due to the alleged Brown Act violations, the district sent a letter from one of its attorneys demanding that the ordinance in question be rescinded or that Riverside County face additional legal challenges from the district. From the date of the letter, Oct. 12, the IID has given Riverside County 30 days to respond or be subject to legal action.
From the Imperial Valley Press:
IID alleges Riverside County violated Brown Act in passing ordinance
LA QUINTA — The Imperial Irrigation District is alleging Riverside County was in violation of California’s open meetings law, the Brown Act, when Riverside officials “lined up votes” outside of the public’s purview on an ordinance the district is now suing over.
What’s more, due to the alleged Brown Act violations, the district sent a letter from one of its attorneys demanding that the ordinance in question be rescinded or that Riverside County face additional legal challenges from the district.
The allegations were made public Tuesday at the district’s monthly meeting in La Quinta during a presentation by attorneys for Aguirre and Severson LLP, an outside law firm hired by the district to make a California public records request on its behalf.
The district is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Riverside County over the approval of Ordinance 943, a law passed by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in June compelling the IID to provide additional incentives to electrical customers who have installed solar panels on their properties.
IID officials are opposed to the ordinance, saying that at stake is the district’s authority to set its own rates and that the district is already in compliance with California state law.
“IID’s business model allows the district to offer its customers some of the lowest residential electric rates in California — rates that are as much as 50 percent lower than that of neighboring investor-owned utilities. The ordinance, should it be implemented, jeopardizes these rates and sets a bad public policy that has the potential to impact other public power providers across the state,” IID communications specialist Robert Schettler said in a statement.
The ordinance passed by Riverside County — which is not in effect, but in a court-ordered stay while the suit makes its way through legal proceedings — establishes new regulations and procedures for irrigation districts like IID that are operating net-energy metering programs. Net-energy metering is a program designed to benefit customers who generate their own electricity, usually via rooftop solar panels.
The Brown Act violation allegations are believed to be contained in a series of correspondence Aguirre and Severson requested between Riverside County officials and staff and principals in Renova Energy, a private solar installation company based in Palm Desert that appears to have pushed for the ordinance according to a series of emails.
“Because of the rather troubling aspects of the way this thing was passed, we asked outside counsel to make a public records request,” IID General Counsel Frank Oswalt said.
Oswalt said Riverside County responded to the records request Oct. 2 and within a series of email correspondence attorneys believed they found two emails, or examples, in which the Brown Act was violated.
The Brown Act states, Oswalt said, that a legislative body such as the Riverside County Board of Supervisors “shall not outside a meeting, use a series of communications to discuss, deliberate or take action” on a subject within its jurisdiction.
In a letter to the Riverside County board from IID Deputy County Counsel Joanna Smith Hoff:
“Email correspondence produced by [Riverside] County reveal extensive, non-public solicitation and collection of votes by Supervisor V. Manuel Perez at the insistence of [Renova Energy owner Vincent] Battaglia. For example, by email dated May 5, 2018, Supervisor Perez urged Thomas S. Freeman, a senior Perez staff member:
‘Tom, let’s count the votes. Use this information and the fact that Renova will indemnify. If votes still not there, we will need Vince (Battagalia) to knock on those doors to get us there.’”
Smith Hoff’s letter goes on to cite a second email where Perez lobbies Riverside County Deputy Chief Executive Officer Brian Nestande on May 1:
“Hey Brian, what are we waiting on now? Let’s move this forward. Let’s count the votes. V. Manuel Perez”
Smith Hoff writes: “It is clear from the above emails that Supervisor Perez worked through intermediaries to develop concurrence on Ordinance 943 out of public view and prior to any public consideration of the matter by the board.”
Further, IID alleges in Smith Hoff’s letter that the email correspondence also shows “a secretly negotiated indemnity agreement between Mr. Battaglia and his companies (Renova and ERA) on the one hand, and the county of Riverside on the other, that preceded any public board consideration or action in connection with the adoption of Ordinance 943.”
“We see this letter,” Smith Hoff writes, “as providing you [Riverside] an opportunity to rectify an illegal action avoiding the need for further litigation.” From the date of the letter, Oct. 12, the IID has given Riverside County 30 days to respond or be subject to legal action.
Riverside County officials deny any wrongdoing.
“The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has and will continue to adhere to the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The allegations by the Imperial Irrigation District have no merit. Board members did not engage in any serial meetings in advance of the ordinance’s introduction and adoption. The recent disclosure of emails in response to IID’s public records request does not change the fact that there were no serial meetings,” Riverside County spokesman Ray Smith wrote in an email Wednesday afternoon.
Aguirre and Severson partner Maria Severson took the IID Board of Directors and those assembled at Tuesday’s meeting through a history of the “behind-the-scenes” development of the ordinance by way of a chain of emails outlining negotiations between Battaglia, Perez and others. There was a specific call to arms against the IID from Battaglia, according to the emails. Battaglia makes references to going to “war” with IID and in another instance calling the IID Board of Directors “rogue, corrupt and environmentally tone-deaf” through the development of the ordinance and the alleged negotiation of the indemnity agreement.
IID is “wasting rate payer money challenging a law they know they have no right to challenge,” Battaglia said Wednesday. “We addressed this Brown Act business. They are throwing anything at the wall to try to make it stick.”
Battaglia said the IID is trying to “paint it as if this greedy solar guy is trying to bring net-metering back. … It’s a just a game they are playing now trying to smear me. … It’s a cartel down there. I understand that mentality; I’m just not going to put up with that.”
He added that any dealings he had with Riverside County officials was above board and legal.
No action was taken on the Brown Act issue by the IID board, as the issue was placed on the meeting agenda as an information-only item. None of the board members nor IID General Manager Kevin Kelley commented on the issue; Oswalt advised, “In fact, it would probably be inappropriate for the board to comment on it.”
Meanwhile, IID filed suit against Riverside over the ordinance back on July 13 in Riverside County Superior Court. The ordinance in question has not gone into effect, as the IID won a stay pending further consideration of the merits of the case. The parties are next due in court Nov. 6 in Los Angeles, seen as a neutral site by the court.
Below is a snippet from an article published on the California Farm Bureau’s AgAlert by Justin Fredrickson, environmental policy analyst for the California Farm Bureau Federation.
“Indeed, it’s no accident that numerous, solution-oriented conservation groups strongly endorse this bond, along with representatives of agriculture and business, flood-control districts and water districts throughout the state. Conservation groups supporting Proposition 3 include the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Planning and Conservation League, Sustainable Conservation, California Trout, Natural Heritage Institute, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association and Save the Bay.
“That’s because Proposition 3 includes funding for conservancies, recycling, water conservation, stormwater capture, fish, waterfowl, Salton Sea restoration and forest management.”
You can read the entire article here.