Replies

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.

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!

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.

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.

Thanks for the confirmation. As soon as I read 5, count them 5 paragraphs, and still didn't understand the gobbledy-gook, I knew the socialist enviro-whackos had come up with their scheme. When the farmers controlled the area there was water, land health, proper use of land. Last year the dark forces took over and there was destruction. What's to discuss? I want our administration to GET INTO GEAR ABOUT THIS! I'm extremely disappointed in Gayle Norton et al.