Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

Response by Michael Shaw to Sacramento Bee commentary by John DeVoe,
an attorney and executive director of WaterWatch of Oregon (DeVoe's commentary follows)

       10/2/2011 concerning groundwater rights and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement

California land owners need to understand California water law. Aquifer water belongs to the overlying land owner. Even the California Supreme Court has consistently ruled this to be the standard since

·     The founding of the state. In 2000 the court ruled consistent with prior holdings in City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 1224 . The court has frequently reviewed this standard. One has to understand that the nature of private property in land includes all that exists below the surface and everything above the surface. For situations where an overdraft of the aquifer exists there is a long and definitive process provided by state law wherein all property owners become limited in their pumping rights so to avoid over pumping. This legal process is called adjudication. DeVoe writes, “Because Klamath groundwater and surface water are connected”. This worn philosophy is a law avoidance scheme designed to strip land owners of their property right to water. It has been stealthily infused into academia and fostered by NGO’s as being the “law”. This is not a new idea it has been tried again and again including here in Santa Cruz. Finally litigation here reestablished farmers water aquifer rights and required a water agency to refund millions in water taxes wrongly imposed by the water district on farmers with wells.


I suppose an Oregon lawyer, DeVoe, can plead ignorance of California law but land owners can afford no such excuse. Many places in California have succumbed to the Sustainable attack on landowner water rights. Control the water and it becomes easy to collectivize the land. That is the goal of such schemes as linking surface water law to aquifer water law.


There is another issue addressed at save rural America that I would like to comment on. The battle connected to fighting agenda 21 is not going to be carried by mainstream press. The press is owned by globalists. For instance the owner of the papers of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties is MediaNews Group. This Company owns 56 newspapers across the U.S. Media News Group is owned by Globalist Bill Gates. Our message will never be honestly presented in nearly all newspapers. As we came to realize this it became our objective at freedom Advocates to ignore them more completely than they ignore us. Be certain of this: If Globalist controlled papers were to present our case they would sabotage our case. The moral is watch out when attempting to solicit friends in mainstream news. Understand the threat that results from press and academia bias which has been carefully, over a long period, infused. Now Globalist policy pervades them both. Globalists control American society by advancing an objective (Sustainability) directed under the globalist monetary system. Our goal is to circumvent their systems and awaken Americans one at a time. Otherwise we will be hijacked.


Michael Shaw




From: saveruralamerica-bounes@californiapatriotsforum.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of Debbie Bacigalupi
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:51 AM
To: Save Rural America
Subject: [DRA] Another View: Klamath pact doesn't protect the river fishery




















Another View: Klamath pact doesn't protect the river fishery

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/02/3951717/klamath-pact-doesnt-protect-the.html#ixzz1ZdzXuLUU









By John DeVoe


Published: Sunday, Oct. 2, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 2E


John DeVoe, an attorney and executive director of WaterWatch of Oregon, is responding to the Sept. 25 Viewpoints article "Klamath restoration plan deserves congressional support" which stated: "The agreements would balance water use in the basin in a manner that gives agriculture greater water security while enhancing flows in the river at critical times of year for salmon."

While WaterWatch of Oregon supports Klamath River dam removal and has spent decades working toward a sustainable future for the Klamath Basin, we have joined several Oregon and California conservation groups and at least one Native American tribe in opposing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement as unscientific, unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. We believe the Klamath's natural resources and communities deserve better.

Proponents of the agreement frequently spout platitudes about the deal but ignore its critical shortcomings when claiming it will resolve the Klamath's fundamental problem – competition over water. Because the deal fails to balance the water budget in the basin, it guarantees the conflict will continue.

Though it promises specific water deliveries for irrigation, the agreement fails to guarantee any minimum flows for fish and fails to permanently reduce irrigation to a level that will produce stream flows consistent with the best available science, tribal trust responsibility and Endangered Species Act requirements.

The agreement fails to meet the lowest ecological standards. The deal's irrigation water guarantees would regularly cause stream flows to drop below minimum ecological base flows needed for fish survival. Projections indicate high-risk stream flows throughout August for 48 percent of future years, throughout September for 25 percent of years, throughout October and November for at least 98 percent of all future years. Overall, stream flows are projected to drop to dangerous and potentially lethal levels an average of four months each year.

To address this shortcoming, supporters propose a vague drought plan echoing previous Klamath water banks. Judging from history, leasing water to bring flows above the ecological danger zone would cost an average of $5 million a year or $250 million over the deal's time span – an extraordinary price to maintain fish conditions at barest survival levels. Flows sufficient for actual salmon recovery would cost more.

Moreover, the U.S. Geological Survey found previous Klamath water banking to be unsustainably reliant on groundwater pumping. Because Klamath groundwater and surface water are connected, over time, pumping groundwater to maintain stream flows robs Peter to pay Paul. Fifty years of water banking is neither fiscally nor environmentally sustainable.

Adequate stream flows to meet long-term recovery needs for Klamath salmon and other fish will require reduced water use and better water management. Congress must include concrete, science-based stream flow assurances in emerging federal legislation.

Only then will we have a chance of achieving peace on the river and a sustainable, vibrant future for region's communities.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/02/3951717/klamath-pact-doesnt-protect-the.html#ixzz1ZdzI5Jmw


Home Contact


              Page Updated: Wednesday October 05, 2011 01:56 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2011, All Rights Reserved