Two Judges Ruled Against Imperial County, One Over a 330-Megawatt Data Center. On October 6 the Board Considers a New 45-Day Pause.

The Imperial County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in El Centro, California. The Board will consider a new 45-day pause on data center approvals on county land outside the cities.

The county says it is writing a new pause after a judge directed it to set aside the first one. In a tentative ruling dated August 21, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Jones said the county's findings did not show a "current and immediate threat" to public health or safety. State law requires that finding. He ordered the county to set aside two moratorium ordinances, Nos. 1616 and 1618, and stop enforcing them. The Desert Review reported the ruling on August 26.

A second judge has also ruled against the county. On September 9, Judge L. Brooks Anderholt ruled on a proposed data center of about 950,000 square feet and 330 megawatts (MW). He found the county should not have treated it as exempt from state environmental review. He found that a full environmental impact report is required before the project goes forward. The developer is Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC. Sebastian Rucci told KPBS he will seek a new trial and, if that motion is denied, appeal.

At a Glance

• Item: Public hearing on a new 45-day data center moratorium for county land outside the cities, under Government Code Section 65858.
• Vote: None yet. The Board voted unanimously for the first pause on June 16 and 5-0 to extend it on July 14, according to KPBS and the Calexico Chronicle.
• Project: A data center of about 950,000 square feet with a 330 MW load. Judge Anderholt's August 31 tentative decision lists a 16-acre substation and 862 megawatt-hours (MWh) of battery storage. It also lists, at first, 132 natural gas backup generators.
• Site: About 75.39 acres at Aten and Clark roads in county records. The city's notice says about 74 acres. KPBS reported the land sits next to the City of Imperial.
• Developer: Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC. KPBS calls Sebastian Rucci its chief executive. Courthouse News calls him the developer, engineer and legal representative.
• Court rulings: A tentative ruling in Case No. ECU004800 directed the county to set aside the moratorium, the Desert Review reported. A decision in Case No. ECU004457 requires an environmental impact report.
• Water: About 750,000 gallons a day, a projection reported by KPBS and Courthouse News.
• Fiscal impact: The county's June 16 staff letter said the pause itself has no direct fiscal impact.

What the Board Will Decide

The county's notice of hearing lists three decisions. The first is a new interim ordinance that pauses data center permits for 45 days. The second is a set of findings about "a current and immediate threat" to public health, safety or welfare. The notice says this includes water and electricity use. The third is whether the pause is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

On August 31 the county said its staff was writing a new moratorium that "takes into account the issues identified by the Superior Court". Board Chair Peggy Price said the Board's priority was an action that is "thoughtful, legally sound, and responsive to the concerns that have been raised". The October 6 hearing notice is the only public notice of that ordinance in the records reviewed. It does not include the ordinance text.

Why a Judge Ruled Against the First Pause

The Board adopted the first pause, for 45 days, on June 16 and extended it on July 14 for ten months and fifteen days, to June 2027. The June ordinance said certain data centers are allowed by right on light and medium industrial land. The July version said permits would otherwise be issued by staff without Board review. The June ordinance also said the county was "aware of concerns" about data centers near homes and schools.

The developer sued in June, KPBS and Courthouse News reported. Courthouse News covered a hearing on July 28. Judge Jones asked the county's lawyer, Nathan George, "Where is the irreparable harm, if you will, or the serious risk to the health, safety and welfare of county residents?" George answered that the threat was the development itself.

The Desert Review reported on the August 21 tentative ruling. The judge found the first ordinance showed only that projects "may result" in conflicts. Those were conflicts with rules still being studied. The July extension used stronger words. It said approvals "would result" in such conflicts. The judge accepted that finding but said it still did not name a threat to health or safety.

The problem here is not the truth of the County's findings. It is what they establish.

That line is from the ruling as quoted by the Desert Review. The court did not order the county to approve the project or to process its applications in any set way. The ruling was labeled tentative, and the developer was told to prepare the proposed judgment. The records reviewed do not show whether a final judgment has been entered.

The Environmental Review Ruling

The City of Imperial sued the county in Case No. ECU004457. The Sierra Club later joined as a second petitioner. The trial was held July 29 before Judge Anderholt.

His August 31 tentative decision said the county could not stop its review at the first step by calling the project ministerial. A ministerial decision, the court wrote, "applies fixed standards or objective measurements with little or no personal judgment". Ministerial projects are exempt from CEQA. The judge said the grading, the lot merger, the closing of Leimgruber Road and related infrastructure "serve one objective". He wrote that agencies "may not divide one integrated development into smaller pieces to avoid environmental review".

He listed possible effects on energy, water, air quality, fire safety, noise and traffic. He noted that the Imperial Irrigation District, the local power and water utility, "identified limited electrical capacity". On September 9 he adopted the tentative decision as the court's decision. The order told the city to prepare the judgment and writ within 10 days.

The decision said the county must set aside its November 2025 finding that the grading was exempt. It must also set aside the April 2026 lot merger approval, Resolution No. 2026-057, to the extent needed to fix the violation. The decision does not undo the county's 2017 zoning change that added data centers to its industrial zones.

How the Project Got Here

The developer first went to the City of Imperial. A city timeline dated May 8, 2026, shows a first meeting on December 12, 2024. That site was an old drive-in theater. City staff said environmental review would be required. On August 21, 2025, the developer withdrew. Its email said, "From the beginning, we intended to proceed through the ministerial process."

The county record shows an earlier start there. An April 2 memo from the county's outside counsel says the developer sent plans to the county on July 29, 2025. That was 23 days before it left the city. On September 4, 2025, county planners wrote that the data center and its substation, batteries and generators were allowed by right.

The county's grading permit notice, signed November 3, 2025, called the grading ministerial. The county Planning Commission heard the lot merger on December 18, 2025. A county staff memo says the motion to approve failed 5-2 because approval needed six votes on the ten-member commission. The commission then voted 7-0 to table the item.

The developer appealed to the Board, and the city filed its own appeal. On April 7, 2026, the Board voted 4-1 to approve the lot merger, KPBS reported. Supervisor Martha Cardenas-Singh cast the lone no vote, KPBS reported. Deputies removed at least three people from the meeting, KPBS reported.

Where the Record Disagrees

The records do not agree on several points.

When the merger was approved. A KPBS story on August 28 said the Board approved it "in March". The court decision and KPBS's own April 7 story place the vote on April 7, and the county staff memo for the hearing is dated April 7. A draft Board resolution refers to a hearing on March 24.

Which supervisor represents the site. The Planning Commission agenda puts the site in Supervisory District 5, held by John Hawk. KPBS reported on April 7 that the site is in Price's district.

The Planning Commission vote. A county staff memo says the December 18 motion to approve failed 5-2 because it needed six votes. The City of Imperial's December 26 letter quotes the developers writing that the commission approved the merger "by a 5-2 vote". The city says the commission did not approve it.

The size of the site. County records say about 75.39 acres. The City of Imperial's notice says about 74 acres.

The economic value. Rucci told KPBS the county's study showed about $2.95 billion in output over 30 years, or about $98.3 million a year. He told Courthouse News it was about $2.94 billion, or about $100 million a year. KPBS separately reported a county analysis of about $12 million a year in new tax revenue.

The water request. Courthouse News reported in July that the developer is suing the irrigation district for 260 million gallons a year. In September it reported a request for nearly 300 million gallons.

The committee deadline. The June draft resolution set an October 1, 2026, deadline for the advisory committee's report. The bylaws set January 1, 2027.

The Advisory Committee

The Board created a 19-member Data Center Advisory Committee on June 16. It is advisory only. At its September 17 meeting, members chose Kristian Michelle Salgado as chair by a 9-8 vote. The minutes record 18 members present, yet also a 19-0 vote on the order of the agenda.

A draft set of county guidelines is in the committee's records. The records reviewed do not show that the Board has adopted it. It would require a special county approval for data centers, with exceptions in some county-approved plan areas. It calls for a distance of at least 1,000 feet from homes and schools. Developers would pay for road, water, power and other utility work.

Timeline

Why It Matters for Site Selectors and Developers

A zoning map that allows a use by right did not settle environmental review here. The court said zoning alone does not make every later data center project ministerial. It wrote that one approval with real power to shape the project is enough. It found the grading approval was not purely ministerial.

Under the moratorium ruling, as the Desert Review reported it, a county has to name the threat to health or safety. A possible conflict with rules still being studied was not enough.

Imperial County now faces both rulings at once. If the Board adopts a new pause, it will need findings that meet the court's standard. The September 9 decision also requires a full environmental report before the 330 MW project can be approved again.

The Risks and Obstacles

The new pause's terms are unknown. On August 31 the county said staff were actively developing it. The records reviewed do not include its text.

The September 9 decision may be challenged. Rucci told KPBS he will seek a new trial and, if that motion is denied, appeal.

The moratorium judgment is unclear. The August 21 ruling was tentative. The records reviewed do not show a final judgment.

Power and water were not secured as of April. KPBS reported on April 7 that the developer still needed the utility to agree to supply power and needed a water provider.

The developer is weighing other sites. Rucci told KPBS and Courthouse News the company is weighing other sites farther from homes.

What to Watch

• The October 6, 2026, hearing at 11:00 a.m., and the threat findings the new ordinance states.
• Any motion for a new trial or an appeal in Case No. ECU004457.
• Whether a final judgment is entered in Case No. ECU004800.
• Whether the county starts an environmental impact report for the project.
• The advisory committee's report, due January 1, 2027, under its bylaws.

This article is factual background and is not legal, financial, or investment advice.