No Compensation Is Due Oregon Farmers - *Klamath Irrigation District et al. v. U.S. (PCFFA, Defendant-Intervenor) 01-591-L

(Note: This judge apparently does not choose to rule for those who had already PAID FOR THEIR WATER. What a lot of Language Deception has invaded the judicial arena.)

 September 2, 2005

 No author provided at originating website address/URL. "From Staff Reports and News Services"

 To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@washpost.com (200-word limit)

 The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled Wednesday that farmers in Oregon's Klamath River Basin do not deserve financial compensation stemming from the federal government's decision to divert water in 2001 to protect three endangered fish species.

Federal authorities had withheld water from 1,400 farm families to sustain the region's coho salmon and long-nose and short-nose sucker fish. Farmers said the decision cost them $100 million and violated their property rights.

But Judge Francis M. Allegra ruled that federal contracts allowed the government to withhold water in an emergency.

Roger J. Marzulla, the farmers' attorney, said yesterday that he plans to appeal.

 

Copyright 2005, The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102097. html

 

Additional related, recommended reading:

 

*Conclusion

III. CONCLUSION

Concluding this tour d’horizon, the court is mindful that, despite the potential for contractual recovery here, this ruling may disappoint a number of individuals who have long invested effort and expense in developing their lands based upon the expectation that the waters of the Klamath Basin would continue to flow, uninterrupted, for irrigation. But, those expectations, no matter how understandable, do not give those landowners any more property rights as against the United States, and the application of the Endangered Species Act, than they actually obtained and possess. Like it or not, water rights, though undeniably precious, are subject to the same rules that govern all forms of property – they enjoy no elevated or more protected status. In the case sub judice, those rights, such as they exist, take the form of contract claims and will be resolved as such.

Based upon the foregoing, the court, GRANTS, IN PART, and DENIES, IN PART, the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment (including the motion filed on March 14, 2005). On or before October 4, 2005, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating how this case should proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Francis M. Allegra

Francis M. Allegra

Judge

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/9-05/KlamathTakingsOpinion.pdf

 

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA, the Klamath Basin, and private property rights can be found at The Klamath Bucket Brigade's website - http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/ -- please visit today.