March 27, 2018

Jim Hanks, President
Imperial Irrigation District
333 E. Barioni Blvd.
Imperial, CA 92251

Re: IID March 27, 2018 Board Meeting Agenda Item No. 14 - Response to letter from
attorney Lowell Sutherland

Dear Director Hanks,

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the district?s March 22, 2018 letter to Lowell
Sutherland since it deals in part with several of the issues concerning my lawsuit against the
district, Michael Abattr', as Trustee, eta, et al. v. Imperial Irrigation District, (Court of Appeal,
Fourth Appellate Dist. Div. Que No. D073331) (Imperial County Super. Ct. No. ECUO7980).

First, as my attorney recently informed the district?s General Counsel, we are moving forward
with the appeal and there are no ongoing settlement discussions. As made obvious by the
district?s letter, given the many signi?cant differences between what we believe to be the
district?s duties to its landowners, and what the district believes those duties to be, it appears
unlikely that any settlement can be achieved. We strongly disagree with the district?s position,
stated several times in the letter, that it has ?broad discretion" and ?vast and broad powers? to
determine whether and how much water is distributed to agricultural water users. This is a new
legal theory which directly contradicts the district's long-standing recognition of landowners?
equitable ownership of water rights. The district attempts to rationalize its new theory in part by
arguing that non-agricultural water users are just a small proportion of the district?s total water
use. While that may be true today, it may not hold true in the ?iture.

When I served on the IID Board between 2006 and 2010 it was the district?s policy that the
provision of water to new non?agricultural water users not adversely impact the quantity of water
available to the district?s existing agricultural water users. In support of this policy the Board
identi?ed 25,000 acre-feet of water for new non-agricultural water to be deve10ped through
conservation as part of the 2009 Interim Water Supply Policy. The Board resolution supporting
this policy was approved on a 5-0 vote. Unfortunately, this policy was abandoned after I left the
Board in 2010.

The district argued during the trial court proceedings in our case that the district?s Board of
Directors had broad discretion as to how water may be distributed and Petitioners, or any
other customer, is dissatis?ed with how water is distributed, their remedy is to vote for a
different Board.? We disagreed with that contention and argued that there are in fact limits
under the law by which the district and its Board of Directors must abide. Judge Anderholt

Mew/5W

3- 27%?

Jim Hanks, President
Imperial Irrigation District
March 27, 2018

Page 2 of 2

The district?s Board of Directors have chosen to appeal Judge Anderholt?s ruling, presumably
because they believe there are no legal limits to their authority to apportion water. If success?Jl,
their suggestion that those unhappy with their methods of apportionment should vote them out of
of?ce may be the only recourse.

Sincerely,

6&9"
Michael Abatti
El Centro

Cc: IID Board of Directors
Kevin Kelly, General Manager
Frank Oswalt, General Counsel
Lowell Sutherland, Sutherland and Gerber
Brea Mohamed, Imperial County Farm Bureau
Craig Elmore, Imperial Valley Water (IVHZO)
Jack Vessey, Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Assn.