Loading
Data Center Entitlement Research23 cases, $64B+ in project value analyzed
See all 23 case filesCase File · Imperial County, California
City sued county. Developer sued the city back.
A $10 billion data center — the largest in California — would consume nearly all of Imperial County's electricity. The county issued a ministerial permit. The City of Imperial sued under CEQA. The developer countersued the city in federal court, alleging civil rights violations. Multi-front litigation is ongoing.
Cited site read: 18/100 before the first permit was issued.
Imperial County, CA — data center permit contested over water consumption in an already drought-stressed region
News coverage
$10B
Project Value
750K gal
Water/Day
~All County
Power
Multiple
Lawsuits
Bypassed
CEQA
18/100
RealClear Score
Imperial County, CA · 2024 — 2026
The complete timeline.
From ministerial permit to multi-front litigation. How CEQA became a battlefield.
Pre-Filing
Regulatory / Legal
Litigation
Current Status
2024–2025
Developer proposes $10B data center campus in Imperial County
A developer proposes what would be the largest data center campus in California — nearly 1 million square feet with a $10 billion estimated value. The campus would consume nearly all of Imperial County's 2024 electricity usage and require approximately 750,000 gallons of water per day. The project is sited in unincorporated Imperial County near the City of Imperial.
2025
County issues ministerial grading permit — bypasses CEQA
Imperial County issues a ministerial grading permit for the data center, which the City of Imperial alleges effectively bypassed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under California law, ministerial permits are exempt from CEQA review — but the City argues the project's scale and impacts require discretionary review with full environmental analysis.
2025
City of Imperial files CEQA lawsuit against county
The City of Imperial sues Imperial County in Superior Court, seeking to halt the data center development. The lawsuit alleges the county fast-tracked the project without proper environmental oversight or public transparency. Case ECU004457 is filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Imperial.
Late 2025
Imperial County Planning Commission acts on lot merger
The Imperial County Planning Commission takes action related to the data center's lot merger application. The City of Imperial files an objection, alleging the county is attempting to bypass the planning commission's authority on the data center project.
January 2026
Developer sues City of Imperial in federal court — civil rights claim
The developer files a federal lawsuit against the City of Imperial, alleging that Councilmember Katherine Burnworth coordinated with outside groups — specifically Comite Civico Del Valle and Luis Olmedo — to use CEQA litigation as a pretext to block economic development. The lawsuit alleges civil rights violations and seeks damages.
January 2026
KPBS investigation reveals project could proceed without environmental review
KPBS Public Media publishes an investigation revealing that the plan to build a massive data center in Imperial County could proceed 'without environmental review' due to the ministerial permit pathway. The investigation generates significant media attention and amplifies the CEQA concerns.
February 2026
Court rules City's CEQA claims 'insufficient as pleaded'
The Superior Court of California rules that the City of Imperial's amended legal challenge does not state a legally sufficient cause of action as currently pleaded. The ruling is a setback for the City but does not end the case — the City can amend its complaint. The CEQA challenge continues.
February 2026
Developer expands federal lawsuits against multiple parties
The data center developer expands its federal lawsuits, adding claims against additional parties beyond the City of Imperial. The litigation has escalated from a local CEQA dispute into a multi-front legal battle involving federal civil rights claims, environmental review challenges, and inter-jurisdictional conflict.
June 2026
Case Management Conference scheduled
A Case Management Conference is scheduled for June 2, 2026, for the CEQA case (ECU004457). The federal lawsuit proceeds on a separate track. Both cases remain active. The $10 billion data center remains in legal limbo.
The People Who Decided This Case
Key officials and community leaders.
A city councilmember. A county government. An environmental justice coalition. And a developer suing them all.
Katherine Burnworth
City of Imperial Councilmember
Documented Record
Named in the developer's federal lawsuit as allegedly coordinating with environmental groups to block the project through CEQA litigation. Publicly advocated for environmental review and transparency requirements.
The most vocal opponent on the Imperial City Council. The developer's federal lawsuit specifically names her, alleging she coordinated with environmental groups to use CEQA as a blocking tool. Her role illustrates how individual elected officials can become targets in high-stakes development fights.
City of Imperial
Municipal Government
Documented Record
Filed CEQA lawsuit (Case ECU004457) against Imperial County, alleging the ministerial grading permit bypassed required environmental review for a project of this scale.
Filed the CEQA lawsuit against Imperial County — a rare case of city-versus-county litigation. The City's argument: a project that would consume nearly all of the county's electricity cannot be treated as ministerial. The court's initial ruling against the City's pleading was a setback but not a defeat.
Imperial County
County Government
Documented Record
Issued a ministerial grading permit for the data center project, maintaining the permit fell within existing county procedures and did not require discretionary CEQA review.
Approved the ministerial permit that triggered the CEQA lawsuit. The county's position: the permit falls within existing ministerial authority. The legal question is whether the project's unprecedented scale transforms what would normally be a ministerial action into a discretionary one requiring CEQA review.
Luis Olmedo / Comite Civico Del Valle
Environmental Justice Coalition
Documented Record
Established environmental justice organization in Imperial County actively opposing the project. Named in the developer's federal lawsuit as allegedly coordinating with Councilmember Burnworth to use CEQA as a blocking mechanism.
An established environmental justice organization in Imperial County. Named in the developer's federal lawsuit as allegedly coordinating with Councilmember Burnworth. Their involvement frames the opposition as an environmental justice issue, not just a zoning dispute.
Developer (Data Center)
Applicant
Documented Record
Filed federal lawsuits against the City of Imperial, Councilmember Burnworth, and Comite Civico Del Valle alleging civil rights violations and coordinated interference with a $10 billion project.
Filed aggressive federal lawsuits alleging civil rights violations and coordinated interference. The developer's legal strategy — suing opponents rather than just defending permits — represents an unusually confrontational approach that could deter opposition or inflame it further.
The Key Differentiator
Source records that existed before the permit was issued.
CEQA Vulnerability — Ministerial vs. Discretionary
California CEQA law draws a critical distinction between ministerial permits (CEQA-exempt) and discretionary permits (CEQA-required). A project that would consume nearly all of a county's electricity is virtually guaranteed to face CEQA challenges regardless of the permit pathway used.
County-Wide Electricity Consumption = Political Impossibility
A data center that would consume nearly all of Imperial County's 2024 electricity usage cannot avoid public scrutiny. The energy footprint alone makes the project a political target — visible in utility capacity data before any permit is issued.
750,000 Gallons/Day in Desert Climate
Water consumption of 750,000 gallons per day in the California desert creates automatic opposition. Imperial County's water allocation is a perennial political issue. Any water-intensive project faces environmental justice opposition from established local organizations.
Comite Civico Del Valle — Established EJ Organization
Comite Civico Del Valle is an established environmental justice organization in Imperial County with a track record of CEQA litigation. Their involvement was predictable from their organizational mission and geographic focus. A pre-filing community risk review surfaces them as a near-certain participant.
City-County Jurisdictional Tension
Imperial County and the City of Imperial have overlapping jurisdictional interests. When a county approves a project near a city that opposes it, inter-jurisdictional litigation is a foreseeable outcome — especially in California where CEQA provides a litigation pathway.
Federal Countersuit Risk — Aggressive Strategy Backlash
Filing federal civil rights lawsuits against municipal officials and community organizations is an extraordinarily aggressive strategy that can deter opposition or inflame it exponentially. The developer's choice to sue opponents rather than engage them created an adversarial dynamic that may be irreversible.
The Pre-Filing Research
What RealClear finds at the Imperial County data center site.
Before the ministerial permit. Before the CEQA lawsuit. Before the federal civil rights counterclaim.
realclear.ai/analysis/imperial-county-ca-data-center-ceqa
Site Analysis
Imperial County Data Center Campus
Imperial County, CA — ~1M sq ft, $10B, CEQA dispute
Active litigation
Feasibility Score18/100
Material Constraints
- City of Imperial filed CEQA lawsuit against county — city vs. county litigation
- Developer sued City of Imperial in federal court — civil rights claims
- Ministerial grading permit issued without CEQA review = procedural vulnerability
- Would consume nearly all of Imperial County's 2024 electricity usage
- 750,000 gallons of water per day in desert climate
- Environmental justice coalition (Comite Civico Del Valle) actively opposing
Recommendation
EXTREME RISK. City-vs-county litigation with federal civil rights counterclaims. CEQA challenge alleges bypass of environmental review. Energy consumption equivalent to entire county. Water-intensive in desert climate. Environmental justice coalition active. Multiple simultaneous lawsuits. Do not proceed without comprehensive CEQA compliance and inter-jurisdictional agreement.
Imperial County Superior Court ECU004457 · Federal Court Filing · CEQA Review · County Planning Records
Primary Source Documents
9 DocumentsEvery finding cited to the source. Click any document to preview it directly. Source-record patterns visible to experienced entitlement analysts months before the hearing.
Cited Brief
How RealClear built this assessment.
This source review is backed by a traceable source trail — real articles, real officials, real patterns.
6
News records reviewed
3
Officials identified
0/1
Comparable approvals reviewed
2
Opposition groups in record
Event Timeline
Key milestones in the entitlement journey
Approval
Denial / Termination
Hearing / Filing
Election
2024
Developer proposes $10B, 330MW data center in Imperial County
2024
County issues ministerial grading permit — no CEQA, no hearing
2025
City of Imperial sues its own county
2025
State legislator calls for review
2025-2026
Project in litigation — timeline indefinite
2024
Developer proposes $10B, 330MW data center in Imperial County
2024
County issues ministerial grading permit — no CEQA, no hearing
2025
City of Imperial sues its own county
2025
State legislator calls for review
2025-2026
Project in litigation — timeline indefinite
Key Actors
Decision-makers and their positions
Imperial County Planning Department
Permit Issuer
Issued ministerial grading permit claiming CEQA categorical exemption — legally questionable at this scale
City of Imperial
Municipal Plaintiff
A city suing its own county over a land use permit is a rare and serious escalation
Opposition Record
Organized opposition groups
City of Imperial Government
Municipal government with full legal standing
Documented
Tactics
Lawsuit challenging CEQA exemption and ministerial permit theory
Track Record
Rare city-vs-county litigation — signals fundamental intergovernmental breakdown
State-Level Oversight
California state legislator involvement
Documented
Tactics
Public calls for review, potential legislative intervention
Track Record
State-level attention raises stakes for additional regulatory requirements
Jurisdiction Pattern
What history tells us about this jurisdiction
Approval history
0 of 1 — ministerial permit approach under active legal challenge
Recent Shifts
California cities are increasingly willing to sue counties over large-scale industrial permits
Source read
A ministerial grading permit cannot exempt a $10B, 330MW facility from CEQA review. The permitting strategy was legally unsound from day one. Litigation is indefinite.
Cited research compiled from 6 news articles, Imperial County permit records, and California CEQA litigation database
Community Record · Source ReviewLinked source records — sourced case file
A ministerial grading permit cannot exempt a $10B, 330MW facility from CEQA review
A ministerial grading permit cannot exempt a $10B, 330MW facility from CEQA review. The permitting strategy was legally unsound from day one. Litigation is indefinite. Cited research compiled from 6 news articles, Imperial County permit records, and California CEQA litigation database
Historical record: Restrictive patternSource support: moderate·6 linked source records·4 source outlets
How this was assembled: Every source record ties to a public source you can verify yourself — news coverage, hearing records, court filings, public testimony. No scraped gated platforms, no invented engagement numbers, no attributions that aren’t on the page. RealClear surfaces source records; your team decides. See our methodology for the full sourcing standard.
This Is Entitlement Research
Request cited research for your next project.
RealClear maps CEQA vulnerability, inter-jurisdictional conflict risk, environmental justice opposition, and litigation probability — before you file.
Cited research summary · Not legal advice · Verify independently before making investment decisions
Keep reading
More like this
Data centers vertical
36 hyperscale + colocation fights documented across 16 states.
All case files
222 entitlement fights
Every fight in the case-file library, across every vertical.
Market level
Q1 2026 Risk Index
Jurisdiction-level scoring. Triage before site screening.
Start here
Submit for 24-hour research
Send a property and get a cited brief before you file.