Skip to comments.
Restoration Plan For The Klamath Takes Significant Steps Forward
The Sierra Times ^
| 10 December, 2001
| Sierra Times Staff
Posted on 12/10/2001 6:47:56 PM PST by brityank
Restoration Plan For The Klamath Takes
Significant Steps Forward
(Inclusive Planning Process Produces
Consensus, Commitment And A Shared Vision Of The Future)
Sierra Times 12.10.01
Klamath Falls, OR - Tangible actions to develop a comprehensive, long-range plan to improve resource conditions in the Upper Klamath Basin have been established by an effective and diverse coalition of interest groups including Native American tribes, ranchers and farmers, business interests, environmentalists, and federal, state and local government agencies.
The Upper Klamath Basin Working Group has successfully outlined a detailed planning framework specifying goals and objectives of a long-range restoration plan, strategies to engage basin-wide stakeholders, and the decision-making format for ratifying all planning decisions made in the future. These decisions are the first of twelve key steps being taken by the Working Group in the Interim Planning Phase. This Phase will culminate in a comprehensive scope of work detailing the goals and objectives, cost, timeline, roles and responsibilities, public outreach of an Upper Basin Restoration Plan.
"Today we reached consensus on operating rules, reached consensus on the goals and objectives of the planning process, reached consensus on functional decision making processes and reached consensus on membership issues involved with a restoration planning effort", Marshall Staunton, agricultural member and co-chair of the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group said Friday.
"In October, we reached consensus on the specific geography included in the Restoration Plan". We're five to five thanks to strong stakeholder and agency willingness to find good outcomes and our "new" resource planning team, Jones and Stokes".
Formed by former Senator Mark Hatfield and authorized by Congress through the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (ORCA), the Working Group was tasked with creating a long-range restoration plan for the Upper Basin with the goals of ecosystem restoration, economic stability, and drought proofing. Given the diversity of the 33-member Working Group, they are uniquely positioned to provide a broad scale, consensus-based and sustainable vision for the future of the Upper Basin. "The Working Group could provide the forum counterpoint and buy-in for the recently proposed Federal legislation earmarking $175 million dollars for Basin restoration. The nine member Agency Group will need local partners to effectively deal with these complex issues", said Jim Carpenter, Co Chair.
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
TOPICS: Announcements; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: enviralists; green; klamathbasincrisis; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
1
posted on
12/10/2001 6:47:56 PM PST
by
brityank
(brityank@FReepmail)
To: *landgrab; *Green; *Enviralists; farmfriend; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Helen; Mama_Bear; poet...
Ping.
2
posted on
12/10/2001 6:48:51 PM PST
by
brityank
To: Jeff Head
Jeff =
I know you have many friends in Klamath; is this story as good as it seems? Are the farmers really at the table, or are they just at the door as observers? Cheers.
3
posted on
12/10/2001 6:51:25 PM PST
by
brityank
To: *KlamathBasinCrisis
Bump to index.
4
posted on
12/10/2001 6:53:03 PM PST
by
brityank
To: AuntB; farmfriend
Opinions, please.
5
posted on
12/10/2001 7:03:08 PM PST
by
B4Ranch
To: brityank
The farmers I was involved with viewed this working group as a prop to go ahead and get the environmental agenda accomplished. I will check and make sure ... but in reading what is said here, all of the terminology is geared that way and I suspect that is the issue.
... the Working Group was tasked with creating a long-range restoration plan for the Upper Basin with the goals of ecosystem restoration, economic stability, and drought proofing. Given the diversity of the 33-member Working Group, they are uniquely positioned to provide a broad scale, consensus-based and sustainable vision for the future of the Upper Basin
Sorry, when it comes to the irrigation waters ... no consensus is needed, these farmers own the water. With respect to "sustainable", the farmers have been proving that for almost a hundred years.
It's a typical liberal/marxist/environmental ploy to get something that you own away from you be all of a sudden creating a need for consensus and diversity and sustainability or some such to pressure you into compromising and giving up something that reqwuires no compromise. Like I said, the farmers own this water. Taking it away or compromising it only hurts the farmers position. Then, a few years later the next step is taken. These folks need to solidly and persistantly hold the line.
Sorry ... but I was told that this group liely wouldn;t pass the smell test this summer and this aricle does not give me any better aroma.
Nonetheless, I will bounce it off the people I know.
6
posted on
12/10/2001 7:13:54 PM PST
by
Jeff Head
To: Jeff Head
Thanks, Jeff. You just confirmed my suspicions, as there was no mention of 'Water Rights' anywhere in the statement. I would also suspect that any 'farmer' that is actively involved is more likely a 'willing' seller if push comes to shove.
By the way -- always remember; Diversity means Divide!
7
posted on
12/10/2001 7:27:15 PM PST
by
brityank
To: brityank
Marshall Staunton is the ag representative. I would say that he is in the minority. Most of the agriculturalists left the Hatfield Working Group long ago.
Personally, I don't trust any group that refers to the various interests as "players" or "stakeholders." Farmers will tell you it's not a game and they have far more than just a "stake" at risk. They have their property on the table. Just what do the others have at risk?
8
posted on
12/10/2001 8:00:44 PM PST
by
marsh2
To: brityank
A Bump! for Klamath.
To: Aquamarine
Watch out for the following language in any meetings held to resolve property issues:
“The responsibility for making the Vision happen rests with the people.”
What YOU should know:
Visioning is a way that meetings can be controlled to ensure a predetermined result. Be aware that in the” visioning process” the conclusion has already been established and the purpose of the session such as this meeting is to generate a "consensus" that will support it. Consensus isn’t. Facilitators are trained to move a group to a preset conclusion. Your input does not matter. Visioning works hand-in-hand with consensus building to draw you to the conclusion desired by the meeting organizers.
Stakeholders can be granted authority only within the context of the meetings held by these facilitators. Stakeholders have no legal right to make any decisions regarding law, property rights or community planning in a state, county, city or town. Only local voters and legally elected representatives of the people have that right.
Sustainable development is another name for a collectivist control of the community planning process.
Regional councils steal control from duly elected officials in a representative government and give it to self-appointed “community leaders” and stakeholders. Regional councils have no authorized Constitutional authority to make any decisions regarding law, property rights or public policy development. Elected representatives are chartered to enact laws and policies in the interest of citizens and taxpayers, and not to enact laws and policies supporting un-elected regional councils.
Remember, our government is based on the principle of self-government or a government that is empowered by the consent of those who are governed
Watch out for un-elected groups with no mandate or legal standing. The only people who can make policy are elected representatives, and they should only do so under the directive of their citizen constituents in a legal and constitutional manner.
To: *landgrab; *Green; *Enviralists; farmfriend; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Helen; Mama_Bear
PING
To: Jeff Head
The farmers need to know now whether they will receive their water next spring in order to qualify for lending to plant next years crops. It seems that our worst fears will be reality in the spring. Many farmers will loose another years production as people get sucked into the trap of focus grouping this issue to death while the feds smuggly sit back and watch as the rural cleansing continues on its' intended course. I am angry, as everyone should be, about the fact that the feds can effectively disregard the constitution when ever they have an agenda that can not be accomplished inside the constituion.
I agree with Jeff Head about the need to stand firm on this issue and won't be surprised when the head gates are the center of more controvercy early next year.
The first item that they spent money on was a new fence at the head gates. I know this because I drive by it on a regular basis.
To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Hope the farmers don't get suckered into negotiating with this group.
To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
They are studying and politicking farmers out of the basin. Going to their website gave me a headache. And now the greenies in and out of government(ALC,USFWS, Etc)are enlarging wetland projects above the lake to hold more winter runoff. American Land Conservancy has 23,000 acres at Sycan Marsh alone, plus many more.Feds have tens of thousands of acres.THese enlarged projects are soaking huge amounts that isn,t getting to lake.If they have their way it will take all winter to fill lake and they go to court and say not enough for farms.There is above average snow and prec. now and they sucking it up. These study groups by promoting the stakeholder idea are helping the greens with this whole scam;Giving them cover for the water grab.Ed Hubel
14
posted on
12/10/2001 9:45:23 PM PST
by
hubel458
To: Jeff Head
A bunch of words that don’t say anything. Well it says one thing. Baffle them with BS and have another meeting.
And when the meeting over it’ll be too late.
To: Jeff Head
You are exactly right Jeff this one smells bad.
16
posted on
12/10/2001 10:01:49 PM PST
by
c-b 1
To: Jeff Head
I agree with your analysis. This sounds like a delaying action while they get their eggs together in one basket to make a "water" grab to push the farmers off their land. This should be watched very carefully. Be prepared to launch an allout attack against the working group using the different Republican groups as letter writers to newspapers, talk shows, the senate, congress, the President, etc. Only by shining the light on what is happening can it possibly be stopped.
To: brityank
bump from montana
18
posted on
12/10/2001 10:17:49 PM PST
by
bimmer
To: brityank; Jeff Head; All
To: brityank; Jeff Head
""Today we reached
consensus on operating rules, reached
consensus on the goals and objectives of the planning process, reached
consensus on functional decision making processes and reached
consensus on membership issues involved with a restoration planning effort", Marshall Staunton, agricultural member and co-chair of the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group said Friday."
"In October, we reached consensus on the specific geography included in the Restoration Plan"."
=============================
Guys, DAMN!! But, I have come to hate the word "consensus"!! It means the "Democratic" vote of a FEW select "elite" is the guiding FORCE behind this or that proposed legislation, rules, or other controlling mechanisms whether legitimate or not. And, the groups, generally {if not always} are stacked with crazy people who think they know best how EVERYBODY should live. SOCIALISM!!!! The word does the "politburo" proud. HOW do we get documentation on the things that have been "consensused" such as "the goals and objectives ", and membership issues involved with a restoration planning effort? Peace and love, George
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson