Farmers Sue Pleasant Valley Water Board Over Alleged Control Scheme

Three board members of the Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency filed a lawsuit July 2 alleging the board president used his position to create a captive water market, seeking a court-ordered adjudication to determine water rights in the 48,000-acre subbasin on the western edge of Fresno County.

The lawsuit alleges that farmer Jimmy Anderson, identified as the largest landowner in Pleasant Valley and owner of Wheat Land, leveraged his dominant acreage position to seize control of Pleasant Valley Water District and GSA by installing a quorum on the board composed of relatives, employees, business associates and partners.

According to the complaint, after Anderson was installed as president, the voting bloc demanded the resignation of the GSA’s general counsel and hired a new attorney along with a new treasurer, who plaintiffs claim is an employee of Wheat Land. The voting bloc then passed pumping and groundwater credit policies that gave all acreage, from pasture to solar farms and pistachio orchards, an equal allocation despite their historical water use.

Advertisement

“It’s getting serious,” said plaintiff Brad Gleason. “People who don’t buy credits from the president have trees that are dying. He can pick and choose who he sells water to, which adds insult to injury.”

The lawsuit states that this alleged “water scheme” shifted the balance of groundwater credits, giving Anderson an abundance and cutting supplies for others, forcing plaintiffs and other growers to buy water from Anderson’s Wheat Land. Plaintiffs have already spent $200,000 this growing season buying water from Anderson’s Wheat Land, the suit states.

Anderson owns a feedlot that isn’t irrigated, along with land planted to pistachios and row crops such as garlic and wheat, which use less water than permanent crops such as pistachios, the dominant crop in Pleasant Valley.

The lawsuit was filed by partnerships run by three of the Pleasant Valley GSA board’s nine members: Valley Nut Growers LP, NK Development and Lovelace & Sons Farming, operated by Brian Whelan, James Nichols and Joe Lovelace, respectively. Whelan’s business partner is Gleason, Pleasant Valley’s former board president who was ousted in January by Anderson.

“This board is arranged in such a way that we can’t overcome the voting bloc,” Gleason said. “We’ve got to use the courts to help straighten this out, which is unfortunate because it’s not going to be cheap.”

When reached by phone, Anderson said he was not aware of the lawsuit and would “wait to hear about it at the next board meeting.”

Pleasant Valley GSA manager Sarah Woolf said the agency had not yet been served with the lawsuit, though she was aware of it. A case management conference is set for Oct. 21 in Fresno County Superior Court.

In 2024, oversight of the Pleasant Valley subbasin shifted to the state Water Resources Control Board for lacking an adequate groundwater plan. As the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act’s enforcement arm, the Water Board is considering whether to place the subbasin on probation, which comes with fees and greater scrutiny. A new groundwater plan was reworked under Anderson’s board and submitted to the state in April.

Last month, an anonymous grower circulated a letter to all 32 landowners, complaining about a proposed $750 an acre foot pumping fee and the lack of a regulated, basin-wide groundwater accounting platform.

The Breakdown

• An adjudication allows a court to determine how much water can be safely pumped from a basin and who has rights to how much of that pumped water
• The lawsuit alleges Anderson installed allies on the Pleasant Valley GSA board, then changed policies to give equal water allocations regardless of historical use
• According to the suit, this gave Anderson excess water credits from his lower-water-use properties (feedlot, row crops) that he could sell to other farmers with higher-water-use crops like pistachios
• Plaintiffs claim they spent $200,000 this growing season buying water from Anderson’s company
• The subbasin is already under state scrutiny for lacking an adequate groundwater plan and may face probation with additional fees

What This Means for You

If you’re a landowner or farmer in the Pleasant Valley subbasin, this lawsuit could affect how water rights are determined and allocated in your area. The court adjudication process, if successful, would establish legally binding water rights and pumping limits. Meanwhile, the subbasin faces potential state probation with additional fees that could impact all groundwater users in the area.