September 22, 2006
By STEVE KADEL
H&N Staff Writer
A lawsuit alleging negligence and financial mismanagement by the Modoc Point
Irrigation District board of directors heated up Thursday when plaintiffs
complained their water was being withheld.
The suit was filed in March in Klamath
County Circuit Court by four Modoc Point Irrigation District members.
A mandatory settlement hearing is scheduled Oct. 30. However, defense attorney
Mike Martinis of Salem said it's unlikely the issue will be resolved then. He
believes it will go to trial as planned in January 2007.
The civil suit was brought by Bill Boyd, Myrna Boyd, Loren Walch and Melinda
Cauvin. They allege the board put as much as $2 million in federal funds -
intended for district use - into a private bank account. Defendants are board
members Pete Bourdet, Roy Gienger, Brian Allen, Daryel Zierke and Arthur
Atchinson. They deny all charges.
The latest development came Thursday when the plaintiffs filed a request in
court for a restraining order against the defendants. They contend defendants
are depriving them of irrigation water to which they are entitled.
Plaintiffs said in court documents they have sought irrigation water on a
scheduled basis, but defendants “blatantly refused” to provide it.
They also charge that defendants “have allowed defendant Pete Bourdet to
block irrigation water to downstream users and to use irrigation water in
excess of his rightful claim of water.”
Bourdet said he hasn't seen the latest document, but emphasized the charge is untrue. He characterized the lawsuit as harassment.
“They are grasping at straws,” Bourdet said.
Cauvin, who is both a plaintiff and attorney for the plaintiffs, said in court
documents that federal funds meant for the Chiloquin dam's removal were
deposited in a bank account that is not the district's account.
But Martinis has said no federal money was received. He, too, said the charges
are untrue.
In a court document replying to the
original charges, Martinis said damages alleged by plaintiffs were caused by
their own negligence, not by the board.
Plaintiffs failed to take part in a district election for board members, and
failed to take part in board meetings to vote on district issues, he said.
Plaintiffs also failed to object to board decisions before they were implemented, Martinis said.