A writer asks – Will IID board utilize their new QSA experts to the fullest?


letter to the editorDear Editor,


Judge Connelly issued an order on 6-27-2013 :  QSA case # JCCP 4353   ( order as to stay decision ).


It stated: parties may file opposition or reply briefs in accord with timelines for noticed motions in Code of Civil Procedures section 1005.


It added this:  Should the court determine after reviewing the briefs that it can properly determine the motion without a hearing—it will notify of cancellation of hearing…  alert!

I take this to be a heads up on a last chance to issue briefs fully discussing all IID critical issues and requests for a review. There seems to be a gag order from the IID. Many parties are concerned that they are not being informed or included in the fate of the Valley.


Will the IID issue such a strategic brief in time?  Concerns exist of the handling and the execution of matters with the court in the past months, therefore anxiety rightly exists. (Lack of public participation has been an issue since 2000.)


July 8th is last meeting before the July 19th hearing…I would hope that a reasonable explanation would be forthcoming from the IID on these important matters.


Congratulations on hiring an outstanding attorney, leading one of the best firms in the country noted for integrity, creative solutions and strategic thinking. Complex contracts like QSA involving billions of dollars in value, are their specialty. We hope they are fully utilized immediately in QSA matters.


Do Valley citizens understand all the options and implications?  Has management laid this out?


Few in the valley expect this Board to manage such a massive and complex situation. They do expect IID to hire the best professional help to attempt to turn around 13 years of extremely questionable decisions and actions. Leadership of the highest level is called for.


Best regards.

Tom Havens

American Water Resources