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

doc4a1b687da2e79934231182.txt

Restoration agreement is only plan in the works

Patsy Gasser letter to editor, Herald and News May 26, 2009

    The people of the Klamath Basin owe a debt of gratitude to the dedicated individuals who have donated countless hours working toward creating the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, a consensus that would begin moving away from bitter disputes and lawsuits toward a collaborative approach to better living in the Basin.

    Agricultural interests are vital to the economy of Klamath County.

    Following the financial and environmental devastation of the 2001 water cutoff, the need for stability in our water delivery became a priority for all.

    Currently, the restoration agreement is the only plan developed by means of extensive debate but peaceful consensus that is pro-agriculture and will provide for certainty in our vital water delivery.

    There is no other plan in the works. Supporting the restoration agreement does not make one “anti-dam,” it simply makes one “pro-Ag,” which promotes the lifeblood of the Klamath Basin.

    It is extremely frustrating that the Klamath County Republican Central Committee would make a resolution against the project irrigators and their fight for water stability in the Basin.

    I am bewildered as to why our local committee has chosen this divisive road against the majority of farmers and irrigators who provide essential support for the Basin economy.

    Additionally, I am greatly disturbed by the opposition to the settlement from our elected state Republican representatives. They are eager to block the agreement, but yet have no plan of their own. Their actions disregarding the majority are harmful and misguided.

    Agribusiness is not only an economic force, but also contributes greatly to the local quality of life that we all seek here in Southern Oregon. It is time to seek solutions that will benefit us all.

    I join the Klamath Water Users Association, numerous well-informed community leaders and groups and a multitude of concerned, educated citizens who support the pro-agriculture restoration agreement.

Patsy Gasser, Merrill

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.

Long Lake could have been built by now wrote on May 26, 2009 2:04 PM:

" Long Lake storage was proposed over 6 years ago. It could have been built by now (even privately) for the cost of the mitigation and KBRA costs and for about half of what the KBRA payments will be to the tribes for the next decade.
Please don't tell us there were or ARE no other options. "

Dave wrote on May 26, 2009 10:53 AM:

" I stand corrected. In the last meeting the disapproval of the agreement was ramrodded through by a group. All it does is create more disarray of the party. It makes no sense to make that stand when it's pretty much a done deal and nothing we can do about it. There were better ways to oppose portions of it instead. "

No to secret negotiations wrote on May 26, 2009 9:06 AM:

" A settlement with all of the affected landowner parties and the citizens who will pay the billions for the agreement, would have worked better.

The KBRA stakeholder group is dominated by US Dep't of Interior agents acting on behalf of all their agencies, ultra preservationist groups and federal refuge farmers calling the shots.

The KBRA is not a reasonable solution as it will destroy a great deal of farming and ranching outside of the federal project and when the commissioners and other elected officials step forward and ask for water storage to be included, they are chided.

The present agreement was done in secret and continues to be secret and the public doesn't like "secret" .

If this is such a good deal why are Wyden, Merkley, Walden and the entire County Commission of Klamath afraid to step forward and put their Official "seal of approval" on it? Because they know the public is opposed to it and they don't want the voters to be reminded at voting time that they supported this secret deal and stuck the taxpayers with the multi-billion dollar bill for it. "

Step into reality wrote on May 25, 2009 11:21 PM:

" The majority of citizen voters of all parties in Klamath County are opposed to the secretly derived KBRA and its primary component of dam removal.

The Republican Central Committee has overwhlemingly voted to pass that information along to the few supporters of the KBRA.

Many of the Central Committee that voted against the KBRA/dam removal are infact KWUA members

Most KWUA farmers DO NOT support the agreement - they are afraid of being singled out and marginalized by the board of KWUA and perhaps having this year's water cut off by teh baord and teh feds due to retribution for speaking out against the KBRA.

The writer needs to call EACH and EVERY one of the KWUA members and get their take on their support - it simply does not exist to remove the dams and impose the KBRA and the tribal demands on them.

The citizens are NOT against the farmers, but they recognize that the KBRA and dam removal are not in the best interest of anyone but a few national refuge farmers in California and Oregon (and their supporters) and a bunch of really rabid environmentalists who wish to destroy the infrastructure of the US.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Stop listening to the little group you have surrounded yourself with down in Merrill and Tulelake and on the KWUA board, and go hear what the public really thinks of the KBRA "secret" plan. "