Ambitious litigation costs, risks take on own life
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
The Feb. 17 Valley Journal report “Power bills topic of Joint Board discussion” provided clear and comprehensive coverage of the Flathead Joint Board of Control meeting on Feb. 9.
Among other items covered, the report stated that the FJBC Board approved the 2016 budget at $491,252 and that “it was noted that the budget was going to be tight this year.” As commissioner of the Charlo-Moiese division of the Flathead Irrigation District, one reason I voted no is because the word “tight” understates the potential legal costs given the FJBC’s three ambitious legal initiatives described in the report.
For another thing, once litigation begins the litigation process takes on a life of its own, especially legal fees. For example, the current Jocko and Mission Boards are faced with a $94,738.92 legal bill left behind by the previous Jocko and Mission Boards as a result of legal actions they took in 2013. To rub salt into the budget wound, unless a compromise amount can be negotiated, it will be necessary for the two districts to spend even more money in arbitration.
I am not opposed to litigation per se. For example, I have supported the FJBC’s legal initiative at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concerning the 1985 license issues that were left open after the transfer of Kerr Dam power project to the CSKT. I would like the license to codify the low cost block of electricity power that has been provided for decades to run the irrigation project’s Flathead River pumps.
But I believe that the current FJBC is repeating one of the weaknesses of many earlier FJBC legal initiatives and that is to overreach and not set priorities, and then to underfund the legal and related work that is necessary to achieve ambitious multiple objectives.
Dick Erb
Moiese
