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.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Today's farmers, ranchers didn't get land, water free  

Klamath Falls Herald and News
Letter to the Editor

May 30, 2010

 

I'm responding to Byron Stanton's May 13 letter, "Farmers Complain," which contains several untruths.

The majority of today's Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers were not "given the land." The current farmers and ranchers purchased it from homesteaders or previous owners.

These farmers and ranchers were not "given free water." Project irrigators bought and paid for this irrigation system from the start (construction, operation and maintenance) that now costs $43.50/acre/year, plus electrical costs.

No free water!

The "civil disobedience and bucket" was caused by environmental groups, tribal groups and the Endangered Species Act shutting off water from Upper Klamath Lake in violation of user contracts with the U.S. government and Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water to users.

Stanton should read the Homestead Act requirements and the U.S. Constitution before making these statements.

Stanton should also understand the economic impact agriculture has on the Klamath Basin (taxes, schools, employment and small business) as well as the impact the 2001 water shutoff had on the local community. As for 5 percent power rate, this was a legal contract between PP&L and water users. What's the problem?

Farmers and ranchers have no problem with the disabled, elderly or other needy Americans receiving government assistance, but do object to the many entitlements legislated to many Americans who take advantage of the system as we currently have three or four generations of entitlement-addicted junkies or illegals who abuse the system, as we see in several near-bankrupt states.

Maybe if Stanton had several hundred thousand dollars invested in farming or ranching with the possibility of losing it to environmental and government regulations, he would be more concerned. Or would be rather import food from third-world countries and receive questionable quality, food safety and quantity assurances? Some government officials have actually suggested importing food from third-world countries.

David Hill

Merrill


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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