Other than value for political campaigning what was the value/damage to the IID of the dog & pony show put on by Mr. Osias at the request of the president of the board? What is the cost to all ratepayers? What damage was done to Mr. Dumar’s & Mr. Silva’s cooperative efforts to develop a voluntary on-farm conservation system?
Osias and management dodged previous requests by directors for Osias to provide information, board discussion and board direction for pre-court of appeal filings and the SWRCB petition findings. He never complied on both requests. However, on two occasions, both just prior to the election cycle, he has responded to individual board member requests to intervene on their behalf to counter questions raised on the campaign circuit.
As the GM should have to authorize the payment of these shenanigans the public needs to know the cost and date of anticipated payment of these two campaign contributions paid on the ratepayers tabs. Will the costs be declared as public funds being received as in-kind campaign contributions?
This collusion and the continuing, historical newspaper reporting weakens the needed strategic leverage to force the State to mitigate and restore the SEA as called for in the QSA agreement but now denied by Osias and agreed to by Judge Robie, who birthed the IID transfer concept while on the SWRCB. This serves San Diego’s interest quite well, but is folly on the part of the board, and legal.
It should be remembered that the Board President and Osias both admittedly worked for the Bass Brothers in their attempt to buy land and sell the Valley’s water, another undeclared conflict.
The people’s business is being sacrificed by the intentional side shows allowed, encouraged and tolerated inside the Board Room to benefit the incumbents’ rebuttals to campaign statements and their necessary support of continuing Osia’s employment.
The unyielding personal interest and personalities of former associations, the traits that originally served as the magnet to attract them, now find themselves in conflict. The collateral damage of the most recent self-serving verbal attack is the blanket accusations against growers as a group by the incumbent candidates and Osias during a public meeting.
Let them pursue each other in court on their own time. The IID focus should be on the legal right to use the water, appurtenant to the land, in a reasonable legal and defensible matter and participate in the benefits the use of the water provides or generates for the benefit of the region. It is time personal interests are kicked under the bus.