






|
Become a friend of
the Klamath Bucket
Brigade
Send
Donations Here
All donations are tax
deductible
|
|
This Website is Dedicated to
Alvin Alexander Cheyne
January
10, 1921 - June 17, 2005
|

GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public
research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting
government transparency and civic education through novel uses of
technology.
|
|

Endless
negotiations won’t accomplish much
I am writing
in reference to recent inaccurate guest opinions
about the Klamath Adjudication Proposed Order.
Some people believed in a free lunch and failed
to file legal challenges to Klamath Tribal
instream claims. Instead, they left other people
with the bill, trying to challenge these claims.
If everybody would have followed the direction
of the free lunch crowd, these claims would have
already been granted and enforced since the last
several years have been dedicated to hearings
challenging these claims. Despite inaccurate
statements to the contrary, litigation has
resulted in many claims being reduced in excess
of 50 percent.
These people
have now decided the solution to the problems is
negotiation. They have a unique negotiation
strategy: refuse to participate in litigation,
so they have no chance of prevailing in court;
and agree to support the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement which supports granting
the Tribes what they want up front, (dam
removal, 92,000 acres of deeded land, millions
in fishery money, etc.), thereby surrendering
potential leverage, without
guaranteed protection from Tribal in-stream
claims. They then vigorously attack their
neighbors who are opposing Tribal claims, while
at the same time they profess the need to work
together. I can easily understand why the Tribes
love negotiating with these people. But I would
not hold my breath for a successful outcome.
My
experience is that the Klamath Tribes are not
willing to make meaningful claim reductions, but
instead keep irrigators in endless negotiations.
When I was in Klamath County, Upper Basin
leaders spent over a decade trying to settle
these claims. Two separate written settlement
concepts were reached, which Tribal leaders
approved. These settlements concepts would have
provided protections for irrigators.
Unfortunately though, when push came to shove we
could never get to the next stage of actually
getting them to modify their claims.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: 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
|