Conservative News & Commentary

Jun 18, 2013 — by: P. Henry
Categories: Economics, Government

Dry-lakebed2001. We all remember it well. Klamath irrigators were cut off in the heart of the growing season. Potato farmers lost their crops, some grain farmers made it, others didn't and pastures for livestock went dry. Green quickly tuned to brown as the water was shut off.

The KBRA was written in reaction to this calamity. The KBRA is supposed to "bring people together" and solve the problem at the local community level. Well that is the propaganda drivel proponents often spew. I have no problem with the local community fixing its own problems. But that's not what is happening. According to the KBRA, in order for the local community to fix those problems, the Federal Government must fund the buy back of Tribal lands, must fund dam removal on the Klamath and set aside a fund to help farmers survive when Klamath enters a low water year. If you ask me, there is nothing local about that at all. It is mostly Federal. The only "local" part is who receives funding.

That said, the KBRA is really built on a false premise — and that premise is that in 2001 Upper Klamath Lake did not have enough water to meet the needs of biological opinions for fish in the lake, fish in the river and irrigators in the basin. So a judge cut the irrigators off — based on faulty science. That's right, later it was found the data used by the judge was incorrect. Had the judge been given accurate data the water to irrigators would have flowed as it has every year since the projects began.

Therefore the KBRA is an agreement by certain local groups who are on a money grab from the Federal Government (who is broke by the way and goes $1 Trillion further in debt each year). The KBRA is to be this end-all agreement to solve all water issues going forward, but is based on the Federal Government funding farmers during "low water years" when farmers will be told (according to the agreement) that they can not use all of their farms that year. This is the problem: there hasn't been a low water year where there isn't enough water for all! There have been dry years but again 2001 is a myth. 2001 was a mistake by man, not by nature. A bad decision based on poor science was what  cut off water to farmers — not the fact that there wasn't enough water. There was plenty of water for farmers. And yet the KBRA puts all authority into hands of the same people who think they know best and want to run our lives (and eliminate farming as we know it in the Klamath Basin).

Wake up Klamath. The Federal Government killed the timber industry in the Basin and now they are after agriculture. The KBRA is a bad, bad deal, based on borrowed money that continues to put our country in jeopardy of default. When that happens, there will be no "local agreement" to solve that financial melt-down.


  1. Paul Clark ~ Jun. 18, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

    In 1990, the logging industry was devastated by junk environmental science. Since then we have learned the Spotted Owl is threatened by the Barred Owl, not the loggers. In 2001 the farmers were devastated by junk environmental science, but it is likely the Cormorants are eating the juvenile fish. The Bureau of Reclamation's own biologists didn't agree with the environmentalists theory and were almost "drawn and quartered" by their own people for telling the truth. And people are still naive enough to believe consideration will be given to the agriculture industry. When pigs fly! #
  2. Finnious T Fogbottom ~ Jun. 19, 2013 @ 11:47 am

    One wonders when someone will legally intercede for the honest benefit of the poor ole bottom dwelling Klam suck fish. When they criminally hacked the water supply off in 2001 the reasoning was to dilute the phosphorous level in the lake. If phosphorus is the problem (10 x the national average does NATURALLY enter the system) then adding more would seem to be an extremely odd and risky manure. Oh sorry that should have been maneuver. Anyhow that’s a mistake made then by their own sciencetwistic reckoning which would bring harm to said endangered species. That’s bad for the feesch. There are enough known and documented accounts to verify that the natural pre-European settlement condition of the lake was putrid. Though the Freemont party could not water their animals in the nasty brew, it is and was still the NATURAL condition of the lake. But they want to alter the natural environmental living conditions of an (well so called) endangered species. That’s bad for the feesch. Then there is the interruption of the suck fish NATURAL behavior cycle. Suck fish NATURALLY burrow in the mud when the water levels NATURALY dissipate in the summer months. There are enough known and documented accounts to verify that the natural condition of the lake was a swampy dry one come August. That’s probably why TP rings started showing up in 1992 in the upper lake areas during that drier than normal year. Sure, maybe there were some underwater human populations flying around then, but I rather doubt it! Anyway, now since the water is kept at an UNNATURALLY high level year round there is no reason for that genetic behavior aspect of the suck fish population to remain dominant. As a result that weakens a natural defensive capability of the suck fish. That mistake could have been averted by taking deep core samples in the upper reaches in order to find out just what the natural water level etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. conditions actually were over a great span of time. What they do and purposely don’t do, well that as it turns out is pretty bad for the feesch. Funny how some care so much for that particular species now, when they (suckers) were not treated quite so caringly by some in the not so distant past? None of this is or was all that good for the feesch. If they too could only fly, they like us would probably get fed. up with the dangerous insanity and up and move to America. Oops? Finnious #

Leave your reply (* = required field)

* :
* :
* Comment: