Report says Klamath panel erred

Daniel B. Wheeler dwheeler at ipns.com
Sat Nov 23 17:15:42 EST 2002


Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.18472e5420f44cbd98a368 at news.earthlink.net>...
> In article <6dafee1b.0211211018.28ae059d at posting.google.com>, 
> dwheeler at ipns.com writes: 
> 
> > Not according to Klamath Tribe members, who had the land before
> > farmers moved in. Of course, their views were not considered by the
> > government...
> 
> This may come as a shock, but the Indians have their own agenda, as well 
> as having superior water rights in the Klamath Basin.  Their agenda is 
> only concerned with fish when it suits their purposes.  The Klamath 
> tribes have filed water claims for more water than exists in the Klamath 
> Basin as a bargaining piece in their effort to regain their reservation 
> lands.  They will align with any party that furthers their cause, and 
> will abandon any party that hinders their cause.
Interesting allegation. I'd like to see some backup data if you don't
mind.

I went to school with a Klamath Indian at OSU in 1972, the date the US
government abolished the tribe.

>From what I learned from him, I'd say the opposite was true: that the
US government had their own agenda, and it emphatically did _not_
include the tribe. Apparently the government had earmarked all
available water for irrigation purposes. And a lot of the water from
the Klamath drainage now feeds into the Central Valley of California,
where it is mostly used for agricultural irrigation.

There does appear to be an agenda. I don't see the Klamath tribe
involved in it, since their tribe legally doesn't exist at this time
to my knowledge.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list