What Is the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit is a state-court petition asking Imperial County Superior Court to order water service for a proposed data center. Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC (IVCM) filed it against the Imperial Irrigation District (IID).
IVCM is the developer of a proposed 330 megawatt data center at Aten and Clark Roads in unincorporated Imperial County. The document is a verified petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief, dated June 5, 2026. The petition's assignment stamp names Judge Jeffrey B. Jones.
The case is not a class action and not a multidistrict litigation. IVCM is the only petitioner, and IID is the only respondent. IVCM's separate federal case against the City of Imperial is covered below.
News outlets describe the request as about 260 million gallons of Colorado River water a year. The petition states it as 880 acre-feet a year for cooling.
“Petitioner Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC (“Petitioner”) is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Riverside County. Petitioner is the developer of a 330 Megawatt data center (the “Project”) to be located at Aten and Clark Roads in unincorporated Imperial County, California, within the service area of Respondent Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”).”
Source: Source: Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial County Superior Court, Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief, paragraph 1 (dated June 5, 2026). This quotation is the petitioner's own allegation, not a court finding.
Why Was the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Filed?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit was filed because IID denied the developer's application for industrial water service on May 1, 2026.
IVCM submitted a complete application on April 22, 2026 for 880 acre-feet of water a year for data center cooling. IID denied it on one ground, Regulation 21, which covers small parcel service. IID also pointed the project to the City of Imperial for water.
IVCM had said since December 2025 that the project would use recycled wastewater. The petition says the City of Imperial abandoned that arrangement on November 26, 2025. It says the City of El Centro left the talks about a week after December 4, 2025.
IVCM calls IID a last resort. It proposes to fallow a contiguous 160-acre farm, which it says offsets the request and adds no net demand on IID's Colorado River entitlement.
The petition also alleges IID's industrial application process can take years. It says only two industrial projects won IID water approval in sixteen years. IID told KYMA it cannot comment on current legal matters.
What Harms Does the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Allege?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit alleges four categories of harm, all economic and regulatory. They concern water access, water transfers, industrial priority and fees. The petition alleges no physical injury.
Each item below defines the term in plain language and then states what IVCM alleges. No court has ruled on any allegation.
Denial of Industrial Water Service
Denial of water service means a water provider refuses to deliver water to land inside its service area.
IVCM alleges IID misapplied Regulation 21, a small parcel rule, to an industrial cooling request. The petition gives five reasons the rule does not apply. One is that the site sits in unincorporated Imperial County, not inside the City of Imperial.
Counts 1 through 3 cover this harm. They also claim a right to continued service for the 5-acre and 46-acre subparcels and a right to buy water through IID's Clearinghouse.
Limits on Fallowing and Water Transfers
Fallowing means leaving farmland unplanted so the water it would have used can be saved or moved elsewhere.
IVCM proposes to fallow a contiguous 160-acre farm and move its historical water, about 803.7 acre-feet a year, to the data center parcel. It says Water Code section 1011 and IID's own Adaptive Water Supply Policy permit this.
Counts 4 through 6 challenge IID's same-category transfer restriction, its lack of a farm unit for industrial users and its refusal to credit fallowing. They rely on Water Code section 22251 and the appellate decision Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District (2020).
Lower Priority for Industrial Water Users
Water priority is the order in which a provider serves different customer groups, especially when supply is limited.
Count 7 alleges IID's Adaptive Water Supply Policy, adopted December 2, 2025, is void as applied to IVCM. The policy reserves up to 25,000 acre-feet a year for new non-agricultural projects. The petition says 18,620 acre-feet of that balance remains.
IVCM argues the policy subordinates industrial users to farms in a way Abatti forecloses. It also cites Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution.
Industrial Water Fees
A reservation fee is a charge a water provider imposes to hold future water capacity for a customer.
Count 8 asks the court to invalidate IID's Reservation Fee and Water Supply Development Fee. IVCM says the fees violate Proposition 218, which limits how local agencies set certain fees.
The petition seeks a declaration that the fees are invalid on their face and as applied. It also asks the court to stop IID from charging them to IVCM.
What Is the Current Status of the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit?
The current status of the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit is pending in Imperial County Superior Court. No ruling, hearing date or court response from IID has been publicly reported as of November 12, 2026.
IVCM signed the petition on June 5, 2026. IID told KYMA it cannot comment on current legal matters. A search of the court's docket could show newer activity than public reporting does.
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial Irrigation District
IVCM is the sole petitioner. Its managing member, Sebastian Rucci, represents it through his own law office.
| Court | Superior Court of California, County of Imperial |
| Case Number | Not shown in the public copy of the petition |
| Judge | Hon. Jeffrey B. Jones, per the assignment stamp on the petition |
| Filed | On or about June 5, 2026, the date on the petition and its verification |
| Case Type | Verified petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief (Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060 and 1085) |
| Petitioner | Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC |
| Respondent | Imperial Irrigation District |
| Counts | Eight: Regulation 21, ministerial service rights, Clearinghouse access, transfer restriction, farm unit, fallowing, Adaptive Water Supply Policy, Proposition 218 fees |
| Relief Sought | Writs of mandate, declaratory relief, costs and attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 |
| Class Certified | Not applicable, single petitioner |
| Ruling | None reported |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Sebastian Rucci, Law Offices of Sebastian Rucci, P.C. |
The petition says IVCM exhausted administrative remedies because IID's rules contain no appeal process for a water service denial. The court has not ruled on that claim.
Has the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Settled?
No. The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit has not settled, and no court has ruled on its claims.
The petition seeks writs, declarations, costs and attorney fees, not a money judgment. No settlement fund, claim form or payout exists. Any resolution would generally take the form of a court order or an agreement between IVCM and IID.
Pages that quote a dollar value for the case are speculating. The petition lists no damages amount.
A ruling for IVCM could set aside the denial and require IID to reconsider the application. A ruling for IID would leave the denial in place. The scope of any order would depend on the court.
IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest IVCM Colorado River lawsuit updates, covering new court filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. No settlement date has been set as of November 2026; IVCM's state-court water petition against the Imperial Irrigation District remains in active pretrial litigation. Every verified development is listed in the timeline below, in order.
Full IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Timeline
Federal Judge Dismisses IVCM's Suit Against the City of Imperial With Leave to Amend
Judge Janis Sammartino granted the City of Imperial's motion to dismiss in Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing v. City of Imperial, No. 26-CV-128 JLS (LR). IVCM may file an amended complaint within 30 days, and IID is not a defendant in that case.
Judge Anderholt Overturns Imperial County's Data Center Approval
Imperial County Superior Court Judge Brooks Anderholt ruled in City of Imperial v. County of Imperial that the county needed full CEQA review before approving the data center lot merger. Developer Sebastian Rucci said IVCM would seek a new trial and then appeal. The ruling does not decide IVCM's water petition against IID.
Tentative CEQA Ruling Issued in the City of Imperial Case
KPBS reported that Judge Anderholt issued a tentative ruling requiring environmental review of the IVCM data center complex. County lawyers did not oppose the tentative ruling, according to later KPBS reporting.
Judge Jones Signals He Will Strike Down the County's Data Center Moratorium
KPBS reported in late August that Imperial County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Jones indicated in a tentative decision that he would strike down the county's emergency pause on data center development. Judge Jones is also the judge named on IVCM's water petition.
Food & Water Watch Calls for a Data Center Water Moratorium
Food & Water Watch released a statement reacting to IVCM's petition against IID. The group said California should impose a moratorium on water-intensive data centers and should send no Colorado River water to them.
IVCM-Backed Candidate Loses the IID Division One Primary
A candidate for the IID board's Division One seat lost overwhelmingly in the June 2026 primary. KPBS reported that IVCM spent about $30,000 supporting that candidate.
IVCM Signs and Verifies Its Petition Against the Imperial Irrigation District
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC dated and verified its petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief against IID on June 5, 2026. The eight-count petition seeks 880 acre-feet of water a year for a 330 MW data center.
IID Denies IVCM's Industrial Water Application
The Imperial Irrigation District denied IVCM's application nine days after IVCM submitted it. IID cited Regulation 21 on small parcel service and referred the project to the City of Imperial for water.
IVCM Applies to IID for 880 Acre-Feet of Industrial Water
IVCM submitted its application to IID asking for 880 acre-feet a year for data center cooling. The application offered to fallow a contiguous 160-acre farm to offset the request.
Imperial County Approves the Lot Merger for the Data Center Site
Imperial County adopted Resolution No. 2026-057, merging three subparcels into one 75-acre parcel for IVCM's project. A superior court judge later overturned the approval for lack of environmental review.
IVCM Sues the City of Imperial in Federal Court
IVCM filed a civil rights suit against the City of Imperial and city officials in the Southern District of California, now numbered 3:26-cv-00128. The Calexico Chronicle reported the filing on January 12, 2026.
City of Imperial Challenges the County's CEQA Exemption
The City of Imperial filed City of Imperial v. County of Imperial, No. ECU004457, challenging the CEQA exemption for IVCM's project. The petition against IID says the City of El Centro left the recycled water talks about a week later.
IID Adopts the Adaptive Water Supply Policy
The IID board adopted Resolution No. 36-2025, creating the Adaptive Water Supply Policy for new industrial projects. The policy reserves up to 25,000 acre-feet a year, and IVCM later challenged it in count 7.
City of Imperial Abandons the Recycled Water Arrangement
The City of Imperial reversed course and abandoned its reclaimed water arrangement with IVCM, according to the petition against IID. IVCM says that pushed it to seek Colorado River water from IID.
What Evidence Does the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Rely On?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit relies on IID's own regulations, invoices, apportionment records and denial letter. The verified petition attaches them as numbered exhibits.
The exhibits include a site plan, a sketch of IID canals and gates, and IID invoices for the 5-acre, 46-acre and 160-acre parcels. They also include IID Regulations 1, 2, 3 and 21, the Adaptive Water Supply Policy, IVCM's April 22, 2026 application and IID's May 1, 2026 denial letter.
The petition reports a 2025 apportionment of 733.6 acre-feet for the 160-acre farm and a ten-year average of 803.7 acre-feet. IVCM uses those records to support its fallowing offset. The court has not tested them.
What Has IID Said and Done in the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit?
IID has said nothing publicly on the merits of the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit and has only told reporters it cannot comment on pending litigation. Its actions are described through IVCM's petition, and none has been tested in court.
IID is a public irrigation district that delivers Colorado River water and electricity in the Imperial Valley. The petition says IID supplies 97 percent of its water to agriculture and 3 percent to municipal customers.
| Party | Role | What the Petition Alleges |
|---|---|---|
| Imperial Irrigation District | Respondent, public irrigation district and utility | Denied a complete industrial water application on one ground, Regulation 21, and keeps policies that make industrial service hard to obtain |
| IID Board of Directors | Elected governing board | Made public statements opposing the data center, which IVCM says makes an administrative appeal futile |
KPBS reports that IVCM spent about $30,000 supporting a candidate in the June 2026 IID Division One primary. The candidate lost. KPBS also reports that IVCM's federal complaint against the City of Imperial accused IID of slow-walking IVCM's electricity application.
How Does the IVCM Colorado River Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit differs from each related case in its court, its parties and its claims. Three related cases share the same data center project, and a fourth involves only the river.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| IVCM v. City of Imperial, No. 3:26-cv-00128-JLS-LR | U.S. District Court, Southern District of California | Dismissed with leave to amend on November 2, 2026 |
| City of Imperial v. County of Imperial, No. ECU004457 | Imperial County Superior Court | County approval overturned on September 9, 2026 |
| IVCM v. County of Imperial (data center moratorium) | Imperial County Superior Court | Tentative August 2026 decision indicated the moratorium would be struck down |
| Nevada v. U.S. Department of the Interior | Federal court | Challenges the federal Colorado River operating plan, unrelated to IVCM |
In the federal case, Judge Janis Sammartino dismissed every claim against the City of Imperial and its officials. The claims covered due process, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation and municipal liability.
In the CEQA case, Judge Brooks Anderholt found the county abused its discretion by approving the lot merger before completing environmental review.
Nevada's separate suit concerns state water cuts under the federal Colorado River plan. It involves no data center.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit about?
The IVCM Colorado River lawsuit is about IID's denial of an industrial water application for a proposed 330 megawatt data center. IVCM asks Imperial County Superior Court to set aside the May 1, 2026 denial and to strike down several IID water policies.
Is the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit a class action?
No, the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit is not a class action or an MDL. It is a single-petitioner petition for writ of mandate in state court, so no one else can join and no claim form exists.
Has the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit settled?
No, the IVCM Colorado River lawsuit has not settled as of November 12, 2026. The petition seeks writs, declarations and attorney fees, not money damages, so no payout fund exists.
How much Colorado River water does IVCM want?
IVCM wants 880 acre-feet of Colorado River water a year for cooling, which news outlets report as about 260 million gallons. At 326,000 gallons per acre-foot, 880 acre-feet equals about 287 million gallons, so reported figures vary. The petition says the request is about 0.0284 percent of IID's 3.1 million acre-foot annual entitlement.
Did IVCM say it would not use Colorado River water?
Yes. IVCM and developer Sebastian Rucci said from December 2025 that the project would use recycled wastewater instead. The petition says both cities backed out of that plan, and IVCM now calls IID water a last resort.
Is the IVCM lawsuit the same as the suit against the City of Imperial?
No. IVCM's federal suit against the City of Imperial, No. 3:26-cv-00128, is a separate case and does not name IID. A federal judge dismissed it on November 2, 2026 with leave to amend.
Is Nevada's Colorado River lawsuit part of the IVCM case?
No. Nevada's suit against the Interior Department challenges the federal river operating plan. It has no connection to IVCM or the Imperial Valley data center.