Last year the Sacramento-based appellate court validated the nation’s largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer.
Now some are questioning whether the presiding judge at the appellate level should have even heard the case based on his past experience with Imperial County’s water.
Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights filed a response last week in the Quantification Settlement Agreement case calling for the state Supreme Court to hear the case and disagree with the appellate court’s decision released in December. The group claimed that because Presiding Judge Ronald B. Robie had served as the director of the state Department of Water Resources and conceived what the group said ultimately became the underlying structure of the QSA, he should have recused himself.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement is a set of agreements signed in 2003 that transferred a portion of the Imperial Irrigation District’s Colorado River entitlement water to coastal communities.
POWER claims that when Robie worked with the state Department of Water Resources in the 1980s, he signed off on reports concluding that the water in Imperial County was being wasted and could be saved for a beneficial use, an argument that was later brought up that some say forced the local water district to sign an agreement to sell its water. He also, the group says, advocated for an agreement like the QSA.
“Based on this newly discovered information, POWER submits that Justice Robie should have recused himself from this matter based upon the depth of his prior involvement and his firmly held opinions on the water transfer,” the motion read, continuing that because Robie didn’t recuse himself, he deprived the litigants of due process under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While the group Cuatro Del Mar had originally mentioned the connection in its request for the Supreme Court review, POWER furthered the point in its response to that motion, quoting Robie from an oral history done by the University of California, Berkeley’s Bancroft Library.
“They (Imperial County) wasted water by throwing water away without even using it,” Robie was quoted saying. “At least some people use it and throw it away! They actually had water which they couldn’t use on their farms, and they couldn’t turn off the canal, and so it just went into the Salton Sea.
“It was just like running your faucet in the sink all night long, whether you had any dishes in the sink or not,” he continued.
When asked for a response from the appellate court, officials said justices don’t comment on pending litigation.
While locally some filing against the QSA supported the claims, other did not.
It’s old news, said IID board President John Pierre Menvielle.
“Personally I don’t think that thing is going anywhere,” he said. “This is an old piece of information. They’re just using anything they can to stop the QSA. It’s another tactic to get the QSA invalidated again, and they’re not going to stop until they do get control of water rights.
“They hate the fact that the IID controls the water rights, and the water rights are public resources,” he continued, adding that the water rights are held in trust by the IID for the farmer to grow crops beneficially.
San Diego County Water Authority held similar views as it filed a response to POWER’s filing.
POWER did not just find out about Robie’s involvement in the Department of Water Resources investigation, read the filing. The administrative record on the case provided all the information POWER needed to place Robie on notice before the appellate hearing last November.
“The only reasonable conclusion for POWER’s failure to raise this issue earlier is that POWER was happy to have a justice who knew something about the issues until that justice did not agree with POWER’s argument,” read the response.
Thursday was the last day to respond to the POWER filing with more briefs in the case expected next week.
Others agree with POWER’s arguments.
Malissa McKeith, a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith representing Cuatro Del Mar, said that under the rules covering judges, Robie would have had to recuse himself. He made factual findings in the 1980s regarding water going to the Salton Sea.
“He was both a prosecutor in favor of the water transfer in the 1980s and now he’s the judge,” she said. “Most of us hadn’t realized any of that until long after he had ruled.”
Cuatro Del Mar and POWER have both petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case on the Robie issue, as well as other environmental concerns. Imperial County has also filed a request for review from the Supreme Court in its case against the IID, though its argument is that the county should have been involved in the negotiations of the water transfer, said County Counsel Michael Rood.
“The county has been, ever since the beginning of this, very concerned about the environmental impact and the public health,” he said. “This is still a major concern for the county.”
The county has filed an answer to the petition from POWER and Cuatro Del Mar, but it is more about asking that if the Supreme Court take up any of the groups appealing the case, it hear the county’s concerns as well, Rood said.
“We want to make sure all our issues are able to be argued before the Supreme Court,” he said.
IID’s general counsel Jeff Garber was briefer in his response.
“We’re aware it’s been raised and our attorneys will address it,” he said.
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
Now some are questioning whether the presiding judge at the appellate level should have even heard the case based on his past experience with Imperial County’s water.
Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights filed a response last week in the Quantification Settlement Agreement case calling for the state Supreme Court to hear the case and disagree with the appellate court’s decision released in December. The group claimed that because Presiding Judge Ronald B. Robie had served as the director of the state Department of Water Resources and conceived what the group said ultimately became the underlying structure of the QSA, he should have recused himself.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement is a set of agreements signed in 2003 that transferred a portion of the Imperial Irrigation District’s Colorado River entitlement water to coastal communities.
POWER claims that when Robie worked with the state Department of Water Resources in the 1980s, he signed off on reports concluding that the water in Imperial County was being wasted and could be saved for a beneficial use, an argument that was later brought up that some say forced the local water district to sign an agreement to sell its water. He also, the group says, advocated for an agreement like the QSA.
“Based on this newly discovered information, POWER submits that Justice Robie should have recused himself from this matter based upon the depth of his prior involvement and his firmly held opinions on the water transfer,” the motion read, continuing that because Robie didn’t recuse himself, he deprived the litigants of due process under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While the group Cuatro Del Mar had originally mentioned the connection in its request for the Supreme Court review, POWER furthered the point in its response to that motion, quoting Robie from an oral history done by the University of California, Berkeley’s Bancroft Library.
“They (Imperial County) wasted water by throwing water away without even using it,” Robie was quoted saying. “At least some people use it and throw it away! They actually had water which they couldn’t use on their farms, and they couldn’t turn off the canal, and so it just went into the Salton Sea.
“It was just like running your faucet in the sink all night long, whether you had any dishes in the sink or not,” he continued.
When asked for a response from the appellate court, officials said justices don’t comment on pending litigation.
While locally some filing against the QSA supported the claims, other did not.
It’s old news, said IID board President John Pierre Menvielle.
“Personally I don’t think that thing is going anywhere,” he said. “This is an old piece of information. They’re just using anything they can to stop the QSA. It’s another tactic to get the QSA invalidated again, and they’re not going to stop until they do get control of water rights.
“They hate the fact that the IID controls the water rights, and the water rights are public resources,” he continued, adding that the water rights are held in trust by the IID for the farmer to grow crops beneficially.
San Diego County Water Authority held similar views as it filed a response to POWER’s filing.
POWER did not just find out about Robie’s involvement in the Department of Water Resources investigation, read the filing. The administrative record on the case provided all the information POWER needed to place Robie on notice before the appellate hearing last November.
“The only reasonable conclusion for POWER’s failure to raise this issue earlier is that POWER was happy to have a justice who knew something about the issues until that justice did not agree with POWER’s argument,” read the response.
Thursday was the last day to respond to the POWER filing with more briefs in the case expected next week.
Others agree with POWER’s arguments.
Malissa McKeith, a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith representing Cuatro Del Mar, said that under the rules covering judges, Robie would have had to recuse himself. He made factual findings in the 1980s regarding water going to the Salton Sea.
“He was both a prosecutor in favor of the water transfer in the 1980s and now he’s the judge,” she said. “Most of us hadn’t realized any of that until long after he had ruled.”
Cuatro Del Mar and POWER have both petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case on the Robie issue, as well as other environmental concerns. Imperial County has also filed a request for review from the Supreme Court in its case against the IID, though its argument is that the county should have been involved in the negotiations of the water transfer, said County Counsel Michael Rood.
“The county has been, ever since the beginning of this, very concerned about the environmental impact and the public health,” he said. “This is still a major concern for the county.”
The county has filed an answer to the petition from POWER and Cuatro Del Mar, but it is more about asking that if the Supreme Court take up any of the groups appealing the case, it hear the county’s concerns as well, Rood said.
“We want to make sure all our issues are able to be argued before the Supreme Court,” he said.
IID’s general counsel Jeff Garber was briefer in his response.
“We’re aware it’s been raised and our attorneys will address it,” he said.
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
