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