Board resignation story was one-sided

I read with great interest Sam Wilson’s March 13 article regarding Dick Erb’s departure from the Flathead Joint Board of Control. In my opinion, it was a one-sided series of complaints by former Commissioner Erb without any counterpoint from other commissioners with different viewpoints. It’s something we continually see from the print media when issues regarding the Flathead Irrigation Project are discussed. As a former commissioner, I would like to provide an opposing viewpoint.

First, let’s clarify the membership of the Flathead Joint Board of Control. The membership is made up of elected commissioners from each irrigation district: three from the Mission District, three from the Jocko District and five from the Flathead District, one of which is from the Camas area. Finally, an at-large member is appointed by the 11 district commissioners to represent all unrepresented irrigators within the project who do not pay administrative fees to support the Flathead Joint Board of Control operations. So that is a 12-member board, not 11 as indicated in the article. Presently seven of these elected /appointed commissioners oppose the Confederated Salish and Kootenai water compact — three from Mission, two from Jocko, one from the Flathead, and one at large. Supporting the compact are four from the Flathead and one from the Jocko.

Irrigators elect commissioners with one vote per irrigated acre owned. Nowhere else that I am aware of does this type of voting occur. The principal of “one person, one vote” generally applies. In the Flathead District, there is a group of large landowners who are pro compact and together with others can control the district election. Our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...” However If you’re a Montana irrigator, some are more equal than others, namely large landowners. It just so happens that many large landowners also hold tribal leases so they must support the compact or lose their lease. Further, the compact allows consensual agreements with the tribes for irrigation water. Could it be that some of these large landowners have such agreements and so they are not concerned about the limitations on irrigation deliveries in the compact because they believe these limitations will not apply to them?

Now let’s get back to Mr. Erb’s “complaints” in the Inter Lake article.

Mr. Erb stated:

“They’re putting a lot of effort into opposing the compact and my greatest criticism of the board is it has done no effort whatsoever on the alternative to the compact which is water court.” Of course the board majority was putting a lot of effort into challenging the compact passage. Without that challenge, the compact was a “done deal.” Mr. Erb’s logic somehow does not recognize the time element of that legal challenge. The compact would immediately be sent to Congress if the state legally passed it into law. The board was dealing with that immediate threat and has until 2018 to deal with its water claims. It’s all a matter of timing. And by the way we had two bids in 2016 from different firms to examine the project water rights. To say there “was no effort whatsoever” is just not true!

Mr. Erb complains about the litigation expense but does not explain why the board had been forced into this position.

First of all this is what the statute that governs the joint board says:

“85-7-1612. Board of control — powers and duties. (3) The board may institute and maintain any and all actions and proceedings and suits at law or in equity, necessary or proper in order to fully carry out the provisions of this chapter or to enforce, maintain, protect, or preserve any and all rights, privileges, and immunities created by this part or acquired in pursuance thereof. In all courts, suits, or proceedings, the board may sue, appear, and defend in person or by its attorneys and in the name of such board of control.”

Our beneficial use water right is taken away by the compact, our water deliveries are cut 50-70 percent, and we have no legal recourse for damages caused by these illegal takings. The project construction costs have been paid in full since 2004 and 13 years later the irrigators still do not have responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project, as required by the authorizing act of 1908, nor are the liens released on our property. Finally, the low-cost block of power which is a quid pro quo for the use of the Newell Tunnel project water right at SKQ Dam is being denied by the tribes, forcing the Flathead Joint Board of Control to litigate or lose this valuable right. These issues have been thoroughly discussed in public meetings, and the board majority supports these positions.

Since Mr. Erb joined the board in 2015, he has been constantly critical of any action taken by the board. He blames the board for extra legal expenses that were caused by additional action taken by the tribes in the FERC hearings and actions taken by dissident irrigators during those same FERC hearings, None of these were under control of the board, but Mr. Erb can’t seem to understand that. He apparently believes that the cost of legal action is like buying a loaf of bread at a fixed price. Mr. Erb complained that these additional costs were “kept from the board” when in fact they were discussed in public meetings. Either Mr. Erb wasn’t paying attention or he didn’t understand what was being discussed.

Mr. Erb spent the summer blaming the Joint Board of Control’s office manger for the 2016 district election fiasco which was in reality chiefly caused by the Lake County Attorneys Office and Lake County Elections Office. When approximately 30 percent of the ballots were withheld by Lake County, with who knows how many votes at stake, and a District Court judge finds the resulting election results to be valid, logic dictates that the county-owned election process was at fault, not the commission’s office manager.

I will give Mr. Erb credit for persistence in trying to pound his minority opinions down the board’s throat. The board and the public had to sit through his long, illogical droning that never got to the point but added hours to meetings that should have gone no longer than an hour and a half.

Mr. Erb’s present resignation from the Flathead Joint Board of Control is not his first. He was elected to a previous board and did not complete that term either, complaining that no one was listening to him. I won’t venture to draw a conclusion as to why it seems to be a continuing problem with Mr. Erb.

Supporters of Mr. Erb will say that my comments in this letter are the result of “sour grapes” by a former commissioner who didn’t win re-election. I can assure you my loss in that tainted election came with a benefit. Not being re-elected meant that I didn’t have to listen to Mr. Erb’s non-productive, illogical rants. I am sure my former colleagues on the board breathed a sigh of relief when, once again, Mr. Erb resigned from the board.

In the future I would hope that the Inter Lake’s coverage of issues regarding the Flathead Joint Board of Control attempts to tell both sides of the story. Journalistic fairness demands that as a minimum. While I admit that the board is not perfect, the majority opinions held by elected commissioners need to be heard by your readers as well as the minority’s position.

Agriculture is the engine that drive the economy of the Mission Valley and irrigation is what makes that possible. Whatever happens to the irrigators because of the implementation of the water compact will not just impact the 2,400 irrigators of the Flathead Project but the entire community. Sure, the irrigators will feel it first, but the 28,000 residents of Lake County and people in Sanders, Flathead, and Missoula counties will also feel great pain. That’s something to think about.

Jerry Laskody is a resident of St. Ignatius and a former commissioner with the Flathead Joint Board of Control.