Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Phase 1. Photo by the Bureau of Reclamation.

SJV WATER: Districts lob more lawsuits at Friant Water Authority, now point finger at feds

By Lisa McEwen, SJV Water

The legal tug of war between Friant Water Authority and three small Tulare County irrigation districts continues to expand, after the districts filed two more lawsuits in the last week.

That brings the lawsuit tally from the Porterville, Terra Bella, and Saucelito irrigation districts against Friant to three filed in the last three months.

The latest two lawsuits include one filed in federal court seeking relief from Friant’s demand the districts pay $95 million to help pay to fix the sinking Friant-Kern Canal; and another filed in Tulare County Superior Court alleging Friant failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it began construction on the canal repair project.

“My districts will continue to pursue all efforts needed to force compliance with applicable federal and state law,” said Sean Geivet, manager of the districts. “I think Friant Water Authority is being very disingenuous on this matter.”

Another suit was filed by the districts in November alleging Friant violated the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, by approving the fees through secret text messages and phone calls among board members. Friant has denied that allegation.

Subsidence caused a 33-mile section of the Friant-Kern Canal to sink.

One part of that suit was dismissed after Friant agreed to stop holding its annual board retreats at a pricey Paso Robles resort, which was far outside its service boundaries.

Desperate waste of money

Johnny Amaral, Friant’s chief operating officer, dismissed the new lawsuits as “desperate.”

“They are wasting more and more of their landowners’ money, giving it to attorneys who ought to know better,” he said. “They should be spending their time looking in the mirror and trying to figure out how to get out of the mess they’ve created for themselves. But I don’t manage their districts. How they decide to waste their money is up to them.”

The federal suit also names Friant Water Authority CEO Jason Phillips, Bureau of Reclamation regional director Karl Stock and former secretary of the Department of the Interior Deb Haaland.

It challenges both Reclamation and Friant’s demand for the $95 in fees as inconsistent with Reclamation law, and alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, violations of the Water Infrastructure Improvements (WIIN) Act, and Constitutional violations.

Geivet said the suit was filed in response to a final determination issued Jan. 17 by Reclamation’s Stock, in which he dismissed the districts’ dispute over how the fees were calculated and voted on. Friant’s Phillips had requested the determination in December in an attempt to quell the dispute, as Reclamation is the contracting officer of the project.

Stock declared that the Friant board followed state and federal laws when it adopted the updated cost recovery methodology for the massive $326 million repair job. Friant built an entirely new, 10-mile section of canal next to the existing one. The old canal had sunk because of nearby overpumping, which reduced its carrying capacity by 60 percent.

But Friant remains about $90 million shy of its share of the $326 million already spent to rebuild the 10-mile section, and needs to show Reclamation, which owns the canal, how it will pay for another $250 million in still-needed repairs.The subsidence damage stretches over 33 miles in southern Tulare County.

The Bureau of Reclamation, through Stock, denied the districts’ claims that Friant acted outside of its authority and stated that Friant “adopted the methodology in a transparent and equitable manner” and considers the dispute settled.

Districts deny overpumping

Though the three districts manage lands near the subsidence areas, Geivet said the fees make no sense as farmers in those districts get surface water via the Friant-Kern Canal. Especially Terra Bella farmers, who he said have little to no groundwater.

He also objected to the wide swing in fees.

“That each District has no clue exactly what charges are being imposed upon it highlights the ambiguity of Mr. Stock’s statement that the proposed charge is in any way ‘equitable’,” he wrote in an email. “In addition, FWA and now Reclamation appear to indicate the charges are justified because the Districts themselves have contributed to subsidence. To say Terra Bella Irrigation District has contributed in any way to subsidence damaging the canal is patently false.”

True motive?

The real motive behind the fees, Geivet said, is to get around what appears to be a stalled lawsuit by Friant against the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

Friant had sued Eastern Tule for allegedly not paying what it had promised toward fixing the canal per a 2021 settlement agreement. After a judge ruled that the agreement between Friant and Eastern Tule did not guarantee Eastern Tule would pay $220 million toward the canal fix, the case has languished in mediation with no meetings since August.

Board members of the three districts targeted by Friant for fees sit on the Eastern Tule board.

That agency covers the irrigation districts as well as large sections of lands outside of any irrigation district. Farmers in those undistricted lands are entirely dependent on groundwater and have been blamed for the overpumping that is sinking the canal.

Part of Friant’s lawsuit against Eastern Tule accused board members of manipulating groundwater credits so that farmers in the undistricted lands wouldn’t have to pay as much in penalties for overpumping. That had the dual effect of reducing payments to Friant to fix the canal, and continuing subsidence, Friant has alleged.

Geivet has said because Friant was unable to get money from Eastern Tule, it is now looking to his districts to make up the difference and called the  move “extortion.”

The barrage of lawsuits by his districts is intended to force Friant to “follow the law,” Geivet added.

He wouldn’t say if this was the final legal action coming from the three districts.

“They think they’re being cute, and that filing all these lawsuits is going to, for some ridiculous reason, convince the FWA board to do an about face and do something different in this issue,” Amaral said. “They’re wrong on that too.”

2025-annual-achievement-report-final