Klamath Basin Complexities

I've been working at learning everything I can about the situation in the Klamath Basin for several months now, and I have to say that the more I learn, the more troubled I become. Every time I look at an aspect of what's happening in the Basin, the more twists and turns I find in the background. Connect the dots long enough, and you end up with a huge web of interconnected agendas that is mind-boggling.

I think of the medical world, and I can understand the Klamath Basin situation as a sign of what might be called an "environmentalism syndrome"...and the people living this can tell you all about the symptoms that go along with being part of living as victims of the syndrome. The syndrome is rather like a malignancy, a cancer in the nation's fabric, in a manner of speaking.

Unlike the common cold, the cure for any given type of cancer is nearly always a difficult, expensive process. Malignant tumors, unless successfully treated, spread and eventually spawn other tumors in their victim's body. If you can treat a malignancy into remission, you have to be on constant guard against its coming back. Even if you get to the point where you can be proclaimed cured, you have to remain vigilant for the rest of your life.

When looking at the Basin crisis, I see two main areas that require intense focus. In the short term, it's important to get the irrigation water restored and get the Green Machine agendas out of the foreground so that the Basin's stakeholders can have the room they need to work out the issues for themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that the people who live in the Klamath watershed can work together...as long as all the parties are willing to do so. With the region's economy at stake, the water has to be restored first, so that solutions can be developed without further disruption to the lives of those most affected.

The second area that needs the light of day is the multitude of environmental activist agendas that are at play in the Klamath Basin for both the short term and the long haul. The problem with these organizations and individuals is that they have their fingers in more pots than most people are aware of, are extremely well funded, and are busily working under the public radar screen. As a nation, we are largely ignorant of who they are and what they are up to, even though they are very open about their activities and plans, both in print and on the Internet. They are quick to litigate, and are not necessarily ethical in going for the win.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant...I'm ignorant of many things, and was ignorant of much of where the environmental activists' agendas are headed, but I'm less ignorant in this area than I was. On the other side of the coin is something I call "willful ignorance", a term I apply to those who, having been introduced to something, choose to look the other way or do the "head in the sand" thing. Most of the American public is innocently ignorant of what the environmental activist agendas are. I'd like to help change that...and hope that you would like to do the same.

RIght now, I'm seeing some disunity among groups of people in the Basin's agricultural community, and am sensing some hardening of attitudes on the parts of some folks, along with a few deepening rifts between some groups. Although I'm looking at things from a distance, I don't think I'm the only one seeing this. It's troubling.

One of the tried and true strategic approaches in any given adversarial situation is the concept of "divide and conquer", and I think I'm seeing that happening here. On the other hand, the environmental activist side of this mess remains unified...at least in the face being presented to the public. That gives them the upper hand in some very important ways, particularly where public perception is concerned.

Strength comes, in no small measure, from unity, and the agricultural community's team needs to build and project unity. It's not an easy thing to do, but it's necessary if the community wants to bargain and work from a position of strength. Even though there are several groups of ag folks, from those who want things the way they were to those who are willing to make changes or even sell water or property, working toward a range of solutions, and I think that most of those groups can meet most, if not all, of their goals. It needs to be from that position of strength that comes from unity, though.

That's something I see that needs to done from within the Basin's ag community...and I hope it can be done soon. Of course, since I'm not there, the only thing I can do is to make the suggestion...

That leaves the "rest of us" who don't live in the area. Many of us are seeing the writing on the wall that the Klamath Basin situation, the things that have happened in Washington's Methow Valley, the opening salvos being fired for the rest of Siskiyou County, the "willing seller" things happening along the Appalachian Trail, and many other similar and related situations represent. The challenges thrust on people in these situations by the environmental activist leadership are remarkably similar, and the tools are the same, from the ESA to the litigation on behalf of whatever local endangered species happen to be available.

Just as there's a need for unity in the Klamath Basin, so the rest of us need to work together to gain a national level of unity if we are ever to gain a voice that can effectively counter the environmental leadership who have agendas involving the restriction of human use of our natural resources and even our own private property.

It's a tough row to hoe, no doubt about it. Working separately, we can't hope to win. Working together, supporting one another, I'm certain we can.

I'm afraid I can't pass your response without comment...

You say:

"You should have noticed one thing already, no on wants to know the absolute truth about Klamath, you should be able to tell by the number of responses to your essay."

I've noticed that, athough few people might repond, that a lot of people seem to take notice of what I say, on many occasions. So long as I am helping to educate others, then I am not wasting my time.

You say:

"Yet, even in your essay, you continue to spread disinformation."

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you on this...in fact, I'd be inclined to feel that you are passing along some disinformation of your own. Let's take a look...

You say:

"The Klamath crisis was caused by a very real drought, the worst on many years. The people whose lawsuit shut down the water are just plain people, very much like the farmers, except that they fish for a living. The laws enforced to bring about the shut down of the gates suck, but they are the laws, and that's what Courts enforce."

Yes, there is a drought throughout the west this year. However, it's not the worst drought to hit the Klamath Basin. In previous drought years, farmers and ranchers have reduced their water use, helping assure adequate water for the refuges and other needs.

One organization that represents some groups of fishers was party to the suit. However, many other fishing groups tell us that Glen Spain and Zeke Grader don't represent them. In fact, at least two groups have made public statements supporting the Klamath Basin agricultural community.

Several environmental organizations were also party to the suit, and they were represented by the Earth Justice Legal Foundation, a "non-profit" professional litigation organization that exists by litigating on behalf of environmental activist causes.

The case depended heavily on the new Biological Opinion regarding the two species of suckers in the Upper Klamath Lake, which also calls for additional water releases to help support the Coho salmon downstream in the Klamath River.

The law in this case is the Endangered Species Act. One issue the case did not address, however, is that of the other 438 wildlife species adversely affected by the cutting off of the irrigation water. 23 of those species are either threatened or endangered in their own right. One of the ironies in this mess is that, by following the letter of the ESA where the suckers was concerned, the ESA was violated as a result of federally listed species being placed under severe biological stress as a result of the water cut-off.

You say:

"The Klamath project is not owned by the farmers, it is owned by the US Taxpayer. The farmers have not "paid" for it, they are expected to pay for using it, but they get highly subsidized rates for the water, as a matter of fact, the whole project, and the farmers payments thus far, constitute a 70% subsidy on a loan....not bad."

The Klamath Project has, indeed, been paid for by the irrigators. The continuing fees the farmers and ranchers pay is for maintenance and operation of the system, including the headgates. The taxpayers have not only been repaid in full, but the federal government is actually making money on this, now that the project has been paid for. Most own the water as part of their property deeds, which specifically guarantee irrigation water in perpetuity.

The ownership issue is something that has been, and continues to be, extensively researched in this instance. The county has requested the deed to the headgates be turned over by the federal government.

I'm not quite certain why you mention this here, since I didn't mention it in my original post...

You say:

"The water rights to the Klamath belong to the Yurok and Klamath tribes, according to a treaty signed in 1864, the treaty of Medicine Creek(?). Even though the tribes were forced to sell out by the Feds, they (according to the USSC) retained the water rights to the Klamath."

The tribes were granted fishing rights, but I believe you will find that the trreaties did not specifically grant them water rights. There is a difference.

You say:

"The whole situation sucks, for all involved."

We do agree on this point, at least.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.