Assumptions incorrect
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
In response to letters written by Jerry Laskody and Catherine Vandemoer: In my February 23 Valley Journal letter I stated that one of my concerns with the FJBC’s ambitious litigation budget is that “once litigation begins the litigation process takes on a life of its own, especially legal fees.” As an example I cited the $94,738 legal bill left behind by the previous Jocko-Mission district boards.
In the March 2 Valley Journal Mr. Laskody responded that the Jocko-Mission experience was not relevant to the FJBC’s current litigation. But the details he provided reinforced my point that it is easy to underestimate and lose control of legal expenses once litigation starts.
A recent FJBC experience also substantiates my concern. In the context of its FERC intervention regarding the low cost block of power, the FJBC submitted its position paper to FERC in accordance with FERC settlement rules that require confidentiality. But two FJBC commissioners leaked the confidential FJBC submission to an outside group and then joined that group’s attack on the FJBC position. Fortunately the FJBC’s attorney was able to counter but it cost the FJBC additional legal fees and jeopardized FJBC’s position.
Mr. Laskody stated that “it’s hard to understand” Mr. Erb’s point. My intent was to briefly explain publicly why I voted against the FJBC 2016 budget. But I find it ironic that Mr. Laskody’s lengthy response to my letter made a number of incorrect assertions about my intentions. For example, he stated that “Mr. Erb seems to imply” that current FJBC Commissioners have a “cavalier attitude about litigation.” I did not and would not use the word cavalier but the FJBC needs to have more open discussions about its litigation priorities and more public information about its contractual arrangements with attorneys. The Board also should report accrued and not just cash payments to attorneys, especially during periods of heavy legal activity.
In her March 16 response to my letter, Catherine Vandemoer also made incorrect assertions about my intent. For example, she stated that I was “implying that the current litigation to protect the water and power rights of all irrigators was a “waste of funds.” I did not use the words “waste of funds” that she quotes and I explicitly stated that I supported the FERC initiative.
By the way, isn’t Catherine Vandemoer the same person who said at a public meeting a few years ago that water rights litigation would cost $60 million?
