The legal fracas over who should pay to fix the sinking Friant-Kern Canal grew Friday when three Tulare County irrigation districts sued the Friant Water Authority for imposing steep fees on the districts approved through allegedly secret communications and serial meetings.
In a suit filed Nov. 1 the Terra Bella, Saucelito and Porterville irrigation districts also seek to declare the fees, up to $295 million approved in a special meeting held in August, void.
“We are hoping that Friant will go back and re-do that board meeting, and if they do, that the outcome will be different,” said Sean Geivet, general manager for the three districts. “The unlawful tactics of Friant’s leadership need to cease because my three middle-sized districts can’t continue to function on an uneven playing field.”
He said the districts have documents that show the fees were approved illegally.
“It’s pretty cut and dried.”
The lawsuit alleges that Friant board members engaged in secret serial meetings by discussing the fees during phone calls and through text messages with one another rather than in open, publicly noticed meetings, as required by California’s open meeting law known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.
A special meeting of Friant’s board was held Aug. 12 where the fees were the sole item up for discussion.
The lawsuit also contends that Friant’s annual board retreat in Paso Robles, scheduled for Nov. 19-21 this year, is a Brown Act violation.
Friant chief operating officer Johnny Amaral dismissed the allegations and said Friant looks forward to defending its public meeting practices.
“The lawsuit filed by the three FWA member agencies has little to do with the Brown Act as FWA is a very transparent organization,” Amaral wrote in an email. “The challenged decision of the FWA Board to allocate certain costs related to repairs to the Friant-Kern Canal due to land subsidence emanating from the areas in and around these districts was done at an open and public meeting where discussion of the item lasted for nearly two hours. No one, particularly the representatives of these districts, was denied an opportunity to present their views before a vote was taken.”
Amaral added that Geivet and representatives of his districts have attended the annual board retreat at Allegretto Vineyards before, and never raised the issue until now.
“Anyone can attend the public workshops, which are provided by FWA to help its full-time farmers who serve as part-time public officials get up to speed on complicated issues,” he wrote. “We are disappointed that these districts chose this path, but FWA is fully prepared and committed to defending its public meeting practices.”
Friant is about $90 million shy of its share of the $326 million already spent to rebuild a section of the sinking canal and needs to show the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns the canal, how it will pay for another $250 million in still-needed repairs.
The funding shortfall, according to Friant, is because the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency hasn’t paid what Friant says it owes as part of a settlement agreement reached in 2021. While some farmers in Eastern Tule get surface water from water districts, most rely exclusively on groundwater and have been blamed for the over pumping that sank the Friant-Kern Canal along a 33-mile stretch.
Because anticipated money hasn’t come in from Eastern Tule, Friant sued alleging Eastern Tule’s groundwater accounting methods allowed continued over pumping and that it significantly underpaid on its obligation to Friant.
Geivet called Friant’s decision to sue Eastern Tule “premature” and that it created a snowball effect, especially in light of the state Water Resources Control Board’s decision to place the entire Tule subbasin on probation.
“They’ve made a lot of noise and forced my districts into this position,” he said of Friant.
He said the lawsuit against Eastern Tule may cause his districts to leave that groundwater agency and form their own independent agencies, which will further complicate the subbasin’s attempt to create a cohesive plan to bring its aquifers into balance.
The Tea Pot Dome Water District already left Eastern Tule to form is own groundwater agency. Friant also imposed the canal fix fees on Tea Pot Dome but that district did not join the lawsuit against Friant.
Attorney Alex Peltzer said Tea Pot Dome is in settlement negotiations with Friant, and a resolution is anticipated in a few more weeks.
Geivet has said the fees imposed by Friant from that August meeting were in reaction to a July 2 ruling in the Eastern Tule lawsuit that dismissed portions of Friant’s complaint. The judge in that case also stated that the 2021 agreement between Friant and Eastern Tule did not guarantee Eastern Tule would pay $220 million toward the canal fix.
So, Geivet said, Friant is trying to get that money either through the irrigation districts directly or by strong-arming them to force policy changes in Eastern Tule, where they hold board seats, according to a protest letter filed by the districts prior to suing.
Geivet said the real problem plaguing the Friant-Kern Canal fix is that Friant Chief Executive Officer Jason Phillips pulled the trigger on the massive construction project without having all of the financing in place.
“He started this project to the detriment of the Friant family and needs to fess up to it,” Geivet said. “They’re trying to put all these costs on my districts so we’ll magically do something to Eastern Tule that gets them more money. It doesn’t work that way. I hate to say it, but it smacks of extortion.”
Still, Geivet said he and his districts are open to finding a middle ground, as long as all Friant members take part. There are 34 contractors who receive water from the Friant-Kern Canal. Collectively known as “the Friant family,” those contractors already jointly kicked in $50 million toward the fix.
Geivet’s position is that all canal users need to help pay for the fix, not just certain districts. Other contractors, however, have said since they didn’t break it, they shouldn’t have to pay more to fix it, especially contractors north of the sag, which runs from about Pixley to the Kern County line.
The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, which is the southernmost district on the canal, is especially incensed at the prospect of paying more to repair damage that’s miles upstream and that has significantly restricted its access to water.
It joined Friant in its lawsuit against Eastern Tule.
- Republication or broadcast of SJV Water content is allowed with our reporter’s byline, SJV Water and the following tagline:SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley,www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org
