The District of ‘Irritation’

Iremember several years ago I found myself with traveling then Imperial Irrigation District General Manager Kevin Kelley to a county event. As we talked along the way, Kelley asked me, kindly as always, why in my columns I referred to the district as the Irritation District. I explained that my intention was not to generate bitter criticism against the district, but simply to show with a word the rancor that exists among district stakeholders.

I told Kelley, who passed away last year, the word involved the struggles, both internal and external, the district was facing with regard to the fight for control of water among agricultural producers and the authorities, as well as disagreements between members of the community and officials.

However, in the more than 20 years that I have been a journalist in the Imperial Valley, I have not seen the bitterness, the friction and the disagreement among district directors as it has occurred since the most recent local elections. The struggles among directors have led some to even leave meetings simply because their proposals are not accepted by the majority of the governing body.

In addition, we should add the recent accusations of racism against one board member, which resulted in this director being censured due to apparent violations of district policies and that might end up in court. This situation not only represents a blow to the image of the sanctioned director, but this unfortunate situation affects the entire agency as well.

The worst thing is that after this admonishment, the accused director, who originally admitted the error and then later launched more accusations against his colleagues for having voted in favor of censure. Now, this director, who has also been involved in his trajectory in other unfortunate events, has accused those who have sanctioned him of defending hidden interests.

This circus seen within the district represents the darkest, most tragic and most despicable chapter in the agency’s history. The worst thing is that this situation does not seem to change at least in the short term.

Although it is true that one of the greatest axioms in American political culture lies in the phrase, “Agree to disagree,” the reality at the local level is far from complying with this postulate. The problem itself lies in the fact that the differences are not left behind, but are taken personally and remain in the directors’ hearts and souls like a cancer. Meanwhile, the communities that in theory directors represent and should serve are affected by the directors’ decisions instead of benefiting from them.

Call me delusional or naïve, but I think it’s time for directors to humbly and honestly put their differences behind and start working in the most harmonious way possible to work for the benefit of constituents and address the many complex problems facing the district both locally and regionally.