Old news is only old to those who want it to go away. And Imperial Irrigation District officials want the “old news” of appellate court Presiding Judge Ronald B. Robie’s past association as an early framer of the Quantification Settlement Agreement to go dry up and die.
But in this continuing war over water, water rights and the very life of the QSA, Robie’s past as it pertains to the QSA’s future might just have sea legs.
Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights is asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the validation of the QSA by a Sacramento appeals court late last year on the basis that Robie, one of three judges involved in the earlier decision, was the director of the state Department of Water Resources during a time when the initial framework of what would become the QSA got started.
POWER claims Robie should have recused himself for that reason. Earlier, Cuarto Del Mar, another party to the suits against the IID over the QSA, brought up the same issue.
Perhaps the state Supreme Court does need to look at the QSA lawsuits. We firmly believe a valid QSA is a good thing in the absence of nothing, but if the questions and lawsuits are ever going to end, the QSA case needs an above-board airing with no suspect associations. If Robie’s involvement gives that many people pause, that many litigants further ammunition to continue to legally gum up the QSA’s effectiveness, then it’s time to move this case on up the chain. Doing so, we believe, will clearly reaffirm the QSA’s validity in a more substantial forum.
We agree with an IID official who said those on the losing end of the appellate court’s decision are throwing anything back at the courts that might stick in an effort to undo the QSA. That has been the case every step of the way, as each legal defeat by the plaintiffs has been met with more appeals, filings and new rounds of rhetoric and angry vitriol.
That does not mean Robie’s involvement is an old story worth ignoring. If it will get this Valley and some of its parties on the same page, away from all the incessant legal wrangling by bringing the lawsuit to a endgame and final destination, then so be it.
A QSA free from legal — and political — friction is a pipe dream; this we realize. But the time and money wasted on both sides in litigating this agreement over the last near-decade have been counterproductive to anything approaching a fix to the Salton Sea, some sort of working relationship between the IID and the majority of the farm community or in building understanding among the public of the QSA’s value by the IID.
All the division, all the lawsuits and countersuits, stop real work. Let the Robie complaint play out, even catch fire all the way to the state Supreme Court, and we will see the suits reach one more step toward finality.
THE ISSUE:
Presiding appellate court judge played early role in QSA.
WE SAY:
It’s an old story, but shouldn’t be ignored.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
Send us your thoughts on this topic to www.ivpressonline.com/letterstotheeditor
But in this continuing war over water, water rights and the very life of the QSA, Robie’s past as it pertains to the QSA’s future might just have sea legs.
Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights is asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the validation of the QSA by a Sacramento appeals court late last year on the basis that Robie, one of three judges involved in the earlier decision, was the director of the state Department of Water Resources during a time when the initial framework of what would become the QSA got started.
POWER claims Robie should have recused himself for that reason. Earlier, Cuarto Del Mar, another party to the suits against the IID over the QSA, brought up the same issue.
Perhaps the state Supreme Court does need to look at the QSA lawsuits. We firmly believe a valid QSA is a good thing in the absence of nothing, but if the questions and lawsuits are ever going to end, the QSA case needs an above-board airing with no suspect associations. If Robie’s involvement gives that many people pause, that many litigants further ammunition to continue to legally gum up the QSA’s effectiveness, then it’s time to move this case on up the chain. Doing so, we believe, will clearly reaffirm the QSA’s validity in a more substantial forum.
We agree with an IID official who said those on the losing end of the appellate court’s decision are throwing anything back at the courts that might stick in an effort to undo the QSA. That has been the case every step of the way, as each legal defeat by the plaintiffs has been met with more appeals, filings and new rounds of rhetoric and angry vitriol.
That does not mean Robie’s involvement is an old story worth ignoring. If it will get this Valley and some of its parties on the same page, away from all the incessant legal wrangling by bringing the lawsuit to a endgame and final destination, then so be it.
A QSA free from legal — and political — friction is a pipe dream; this we realize. But the time and money wasted on both sides in litigating this agreement over the last near-decade have been counterproductive to anything approaching a fix to the Salton Sea, some sort of working relationship between the IID and the majority of the farm community or in building understanding among the public of the QSA’s value by the IID.
All the division, all the lawsuits and countersuits, stop real work. Let the Robie complaint play out, even catch fire all the way to the state Supreme Court, and we will see the suits reach one more step toward finality.
THE ISSUE:
Presiding appellate court judge played early role in QSA.
WE SAY:
It’s an old story, but shouldn’t be ignored.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
Send us your thoughts on this topic to www.ivpressonline.com/letterstotheeditor
