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.

by Rex Cozzalio November 12, 2012

If I read this correctly, the following are among the



- Of course the first affront is the Title itself. It is a fabrication of deceptive public aimed rhetoric bearing no accuracy or applicability to the underlying KBRA to which it references.

- With the revision, any ‘Agreement’ expiration can extend indefinitely (year by year) as long as parties don’t protest (7.6).

- All ‘members’ have a compact to support the appropriation of funding for the other ‘members’ (5.3, 9.3, 14.3, 21.5, 26.4, 31.3, 32.2).

- The limiting terms for Refuge allocation may be subsequently rescinded through future water right challenges against others (15.1.2.E).

- OWRD is able to further impose any of its revisions after the fact (15.1.3).

- Under certain sections, ‘existing’ members are protected from future ‘Agreement’ changes that later participants, willing or unwilling, may be subject to (F., G.).

- Tribes will be allowed to make separate agreements with the ‘Secretary’ UNDER the ‘Agreement’ without consent of the other members (D. et al).

- An extremely significant impact, Interior INSERTS itself into ‘Drought Plan’ approval, giving itself ULTIMATE authority over any ‘plan’ and the previous ‘Funding Entity’. However, as the Funding Entity MAY (as with the Fish and Wildlife Foundation) be a ‘private’ governmentally funded entity, any of the monies approved for spending would NOT be subject to disclosure or accountability (19.2.3B-L).

- ‘Agreement’ required monitoring and ‘assessment’ is ‘allowed’ to instead be provided by the Federal entities, allocating public funds to implement and ‘document’ the Agencies’ perspective and intended agenda (19.4.3).

- ‘Agreement’ members are still subject to the requirements of separately submitted Incidental Take Permits, not only for their respective area of impact but for the entire river length. However, at least as known in the case of the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Agency has granted itself subjective authority to break their own requirements so that they may pick and choose the ‘projects’ that will receive ability to degrade the environment if it ‘may’ be beneficial ‘sometime in the future’ in ‘their expert opinion’. It is reasonable to assume the other Agencies have or will follow suit, allowing themselves the same unaccountable ability to grant preferential treatment to selected entity ‘partnerships’ while persecuting others, setting the perfect stage for corruption (10, 10a1B). This is in addition to the continued requirements of any such approved Permit enduring long beyond the “Agreement’ (10a1B).

- Under the ‘Agreement’. FWS and NMFS enjoy complete discretionary Permit control and determination of impacts over any ‘use’ of land (C).

- Members are not exempt from litigation as any Permits are dependent upon ongoing concurrence with EPA ‘criteria’ (22.1.2, 22.2).

- Under the ‘Agreement’, the ‘Secretary’ (of Interior) may grant any appropriated funds above and beyond the ‘requirements’ of the Agreement to the Tribes as they deem fit between themselves for the purposes of and as determined by Interior (32.3).

- The same above funding determination is granted NMFS and Forest Service (32.2.2).



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Home Contact


              Page Updated: Saturday November 17, 2012 01:56 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2012, All Rights Reserved