LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP 221 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET. SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 250-1800 ?l R. Gaylord Smith, CA Bar No. 72726 Sheri M. Schwartz, NV Bar No. 8657 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP 400 South Fourth Street, Suite 500 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tel: (702) 893-3383 Jay F. Stein, NM Bar No. 2572 STEIN BROCKMANN, P.A. 460 St. Michael?s Drive, Suite 603 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Tel: (505) 983-3 880 ECONOMICO de MEXICALI, A.C. William Snape, DC Bar No. 455266 5268 Watson Street, NW Washington, DC 20016 Tel: (202) 537-3458 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIZENS UNITED FOR RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT UNITED STATES CONSEJO de DESARROLLO ECONOMICO de MEXICALI, CITIZENS UNITED FOR RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRON- DESERT CITIZENS AGAINST POLLUTION, Plaintiffs, VS . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eta-11., Defendants ase Document 155-2 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff CONSEJO de DESARROLLO DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA CASE NO. (GWF) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ABATTI IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION VV?H?l?c?lM?lv 4819-9039-8976! LEWIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP 221 NORTH FIGUEIROA STREET, SUITE 1200 ?05 ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 250-1800 Case Document 155-2 Filed 02/02/06 Page Michael Abatti, declare and state as follows: 1. I am a third generation farmer in the Imperial Valley and director of the Imperial County Farm Bureau and make this declaration in my personal capacity, in support of this Court 2 granting a preliminary injunction on the construction of a new All American Canal until such time as updated and accurate environmental and economic analysis has been conducted. The statements made herein are of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could testify to the truth thereof. 2. My interest is in obtaining an injunction until further study is conducted on U.S, environmental and related socio?economic impacts caused by this AAC project. These impacts have not been adequately analyzed by the federal government or IID. 3. The existing AAC is the sole source of Colorado River water for farms in the Imperial Valley. Prior to its construction in 1942, our water came through the Alamo Canal in Mexico which essentially ran parallel to the AAC south of the border. 4. Farmers (including my family) have farmed in the Imperial Valley since the early 20th Century. The Imperial Irrigation District founded in 1911, has the largest allocation of water to the Colorado River of any California water agency. Prior to 2003, IID was entitled to 3.85 million acre feet per year minus allocations to Yuma and Palo Verde Irrigation District. In 2003, the IID entered into agreements to reduce their allocation of water to 3.1 MAFY and to transfer over 300,000 acre feet of this allocation to . the San Diego County Water Authority and the Coachella Valley Water District. These agreements are known as the Quanti?cation Settlement Agreement 5. Many individual members of the Farm Bureau are involved in litigation in California state court questioning whether the reduced quanti?cation and transfers are legal. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE {213) 250-1800 Lawns Brussels BISGAARD SMITH up 221 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1200 Case Document 155-2 Filed 02/02/06 Page 3 of 5 1 6. On January 10, 2006, the IID approved the contracts for construction of the new AAC. 2 During that hearing, its general counsel con?rmed that the QSA does not require the AAC 3 lining project. To my knowledge, the federal Bureau of Reclamation and the IID have not 4 conducted hearings, or taken formal public comment, for over 10 years on the AAC construction project. ,7 7. One of my concerns is that the proposed concrete lined AAC is smaller than the present 3 canal and may physically limit the amount of water thatcan be made available for farming 9 - and other uses in the Imperial Valley. Since the canal is the sole infrastructure for 10 conveying water into the valley, a smaller canal structure could permanently reduce 11 share of Colorado River water even if a Court in California ultimately overturns the QSA 12 and its water transfers. This reason alone means that the canal should not be constructed until those proceedings are completed. 15 8. Despite requests to IID by my consultants and me, the IID has-refused to produce copies of 15 the canal engineering design reports or speci?cations. Without this information, I and my 1'7 fellow farmers cannot independently retain engineers to provide ?rst hand testimony as to 18 the adequacy and impacts of the proposed smaller canal. 19 9. I am concerned about the proposed canal design because the IID has in the past lined other :2 smaller canals in the valley that have in turn created numerous operational problems for 22 farms and farmers. For example, I have personal knowledge that improvements made to 23 the district?s Beech Canal have created restrictions in the water flow preventing me and 24 other fanners serviced by the canal from receiving water on a timely basis. These 25 restrictions have adversely affected the yields and quality of the crops that have grown 26 causing economic damages to my farming operations. A smaller AAC could similarly 27 restrict water ?ow to the entire Imperial Valley and create system wide delays in water 28 3 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 3: LLP 221 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET. SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE {213) 250-1800 Case Document 155-2 Filed 02/02/06 Page 4 of 5 1 delivery to valley farmers (or totally unavailability), and hence large scale economic 2 damage to the valley?s farming operations. It also could cause environmental impacts 3 related to, among other things, loss of agricultural lands, public safety and wildlife. 4 10. There are several other environmental impacts that the Bureau of Reclamation did not consider in its 1994 Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report. First, 7 reduced seepage to groundwater and reduced water usage of water on Imperial farms 3 directly impact water that ordinarily ?ows into the Salton Sea and current levels of seepage 9 helps to reduce salinity levels there. Second, at the time the Bureau conducted its EIS, it 10 did not contemplate that thousands of acres of land in the Imperial Valley would be 11_ fallowed to generate water needed for transfer to San Diego. The loss of seepage to farms 11: in Mexico will result in fallowed land there too. The cumulative impact of this increased 14 fallowing has not been assessed from an air quality perspective. Increasingly adverse air 15 quality in the Imperial Valley is a concern to all of as living here. 15 11. The proposed concrete lined canal will have water ?owing at a faster rate within a channel 17 with steeper side slopes than currently exists and this increases the risk of drowning to both 18 the public and wildlife in the area The valley already eXperiences a number of human 19 drowning deaths in the existing canal each year. One measure that was preposed in the :2 1994 lining project design to mitigate the increased risk to health and safety was the 22 construction of ridges within the canal that would allow for humans and large mammals to 23 escape. The Bureau of Reclamation and 11D have informed us that these ridges will not be 24 included in the ?nal design as was proposed. No assessment has been made about the 25 increased risk to public health and safety in light of this new design. This is particularly a 26 concern with the increase in migration into our country and the number of migrants who 27 attempt to cross the canal, and is a concern for U.S. children and citizens as well. 28 4 221' NORTH. Case Document 155-2 Filed 02/02/06 Page .33.1. d?aalam under (starred. and EICento,Cahf0m1a. on -- - MICHAELABATTI