Posts

Comite Civico Del Valle has done real work in Imperial Valley. Over its history, the organization has conducted air quality monitoring, documented health impacts on farmworker communities, and advocated for environmental regulations that disproportionate affect the Valley’s most vulnerable residents. Luis Olmedo, its Executive Director, is a known figure in the community — a person who has represented legitimate concerns that official agencies have sometimes been slow to address.

This is important context. It is also not the full picture.

A Desert Sun investigation documented that Olmedo and CCV demanded $83 million from Controlled Thermal Resources — a company developing geothermal lithium extraction in the Salton Sea’s “Lithium Valley” — as the price of dropping CEQA-based opposition to CTR’s project. Eighty-three million dollars. To a single organization. In exchange for withdrawing a lawsuit.

This demand was not a fine, not a regulatory requirement, not a court-ordered remedy. It was a number put on the table by a non-profit organization as the cost of making its legal obstruction go away. The Desert Sun named it. The IVCM federal lawsuit alleges that a version of this same model was being applied to the Imperial Valley Data Center — and that Katherine Burnworth coordinated with Olmedo’s organization to create the legal leverage necessary to make the demand viable.

Understanding the Greenmail Mechanism

CEQA provides any organization with standing — a very low bar in California — the ability to challenge any discretionary development approval. The challenge doesn’t need to win. It needs to exist. The mere filing of a CEQA lawsuit freezes a project’s timeline, activates its legal costs, and triggers the carrying-cost clock on every dollar of financing the developer has deployed.

For a well-capitalized developer, a determined CEQA challenger can add $10-50 million in costs over a multi-year litigation period, even if every court ultimately rules in the developer’s favor. The rational economic response, for many developers, is to settle — to pay the challenging organization a fraction of what continued litigation would cost, receive a settlement agreement dropping the lawsuit, and proceed.

This is greenmail. The organization is not protecting the environment by winning the lawsuit. It is extracting a financial payment by threatening to pursue it. The environment is the pretext, not the purpose.

The Distinction That Matters

CCV’s legitimate community health work does not immunize it from accountability for a business practice that exploits environmental law to extract settlements from developers. These are separable activities. An organization can genuinely advocate for farmworker communities on air quality and also use CEQA litigation as a revenue mechanism. The good work doesn’t cancel out the accountability question raised by the bad practice.

The $83 million demand is documented. The Desert Sun is not a tabloid. The allegation in the IVCM complaint — that a version of this model was being coordinated against the data center — will be litigated in federal court where allegations are tested against evidence.

The community members who trust CCV for its air quality work deserve to know about the $83 million demand. They deserve to know the allegation that their city council member coordinated with the organization to manufacture CEQA exposure for the region’s largest job-creating project. They deserve to make their own judgments with the full picture, not the portion of it that serves one political narrative.

The Effect on Imperial Valley’s Development Future

A region where large development projects face coordinated CEQA-based settlement demands will eventually stop attracting large development projects. The $83 million demand on CTR — if it becomes the established price of doing business in Imperial Valley’s energy sector — will be cited in every site evaluation memo that puts this region on a developer’s short list. Not because developers don’t know how to negotiate, but because the expected total cost of project development includes settlement payments as a line item when that pattern is established.

The Lithium Valley opportunity — geothermal energy, domestic lithium extraction, clean technology investment — depends on the region being a viable place to invest. The data center opportunity depends on the same thing. An $83 million settlement demand, applied consistently to major projects, is a tax on investment that falls ultimately on the workers who would have been employed by projects that chose different sites instead.

The Desert Sun‘s investigation into Comite Civico Del Valle’s dealings with Controlled Thermal Resources was a significant piece of regional journalism. It documented, specifically, that Luis Olmedo — CCV’s Executive Director — demanded $83 million from CTR as the price of dropping CEQA-based opposition to CTR’s geothermal lithium extraction project in the Salton Sea region.

CTR is developing exactly the kind of project that Imperial Valley needs: domestic lithium extraction from geothermal brine, integrated with clean energy production, in a region that has been waiting for decades to convert its geothermal resources into economic diversification. The “Lithium Valley” narrative that has attracted significant state and federal attention depends on projects like CTR actually getting built.

The $83 million demand does not appear to have been about lithium extraction’s environmental impacts. It appears to have been about the financial value of CCV’s ability to threaten those impacts through CEQA litigation. Eighty-three million dollars is not a mitigation cost. It is a toll.

Connecting the Dots to the IVDC

The IVCM federal complaint alleges that the same model — organized CEQA opposition designed to create settlement leverage — was coordinated against the Imperial Valley Data Center, and that the coordination involved both Katherine Burnworth and CCV. The allegation is that Burnworth worked to force the project into a CEQA process it was legally exempt from specifically to create the leverage that a settlement demand would require.

The February 10 Superior Court ruling that the city’s legal theory was “legally insufficient” disrupted this strategy at the threshold level. Without the CUP requirement, there is no CEQA trigger. Without the CEQA trigger, there is no litigation threat. Without the litigation threat, there is no settlement leverage. The court ruling did not just validate the project’s approval — it may have effectively eliminated the financial mechanism the opposition coalition was depending on.

The Pattern That Should Concern Imperial Valley

The $83 million demand on CTR is documented. The allegation of coordinated CEQA-based opposition to the IVDC is in a federal complaint. If both are accurate, the pattern is clear: major development projects in Imperial Valley’s energy and technology sectors are facing coordinated opposition that uses CEQA litigation as a financial extraction tool rather than an environmental protection mechanism.

Lithium Valley and data center development are the two largest economic opportunities currently visible in Imperial Valley’s future. If both are subject to organized greenmail campaigns, the effective tax on development in the region rises substantially. That tax is paid first by developers who adjust their site selection decisions, and ultimately by the workers who never get hired because the projects that would have employed them never got built.

What the Community Should Demand

Luis Olmedo has the right to lead the organization he leads. He has the right to use legal tools that are available to him. He does not have the right to represent his activities as environmental protection when the documented evidence suggests they are financial extraction. The community he claims to represent deserves the honest version of both narratives.

The honest version includes: CCV has done real environmental health work in Imperial Valley. It has also, according to documented reporting, demanded $83 million from a clean energy developer. It has also, according to a federal complaint, been named as a participant in a coordinated campaign to create CEQA leverage against the region’s largest job-creating project.

These facts can coexist. The community’s job is to hold them together and make its own judgments — which means insisting on access to all of the relevant facts, not just the ones that support a predetermined conclusion.