[brityank]

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.

[Jeff Head]

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.