What is “Rural Cleansing”?
This week, the Western Ag Reporter showcased this old Wall Street Journal article from July 2001 that should remind us all that many forces are working toward removing people from their land in rural areas throughout the country.
The article below helps put into perspective the Department of Interior meeting with the Flathead Joint Board of Control a few weeks ago. Western Montana must really be on the feds radar. Over the past several months, they’ve sent two letters (Letter 1) (Letter 2) and called a “special” meeting to make sure people know that short of a water compact, they have no problem increasing instream flows via whatever means necessary, up to and including invoking the Endangered Species Act for Bull Trout.
By Kimberley A. Strassel. Ms. Strassel is an assistant editorial features editor at the Wall Street Journal
Federal authorities were forced to cut off water to 1,500 farms in Oregon’s and California’s Klamath Basin in April because of the “endangered” sucker fish. The environmental groups behind the cutoff continue to declare that they are simply concerned for the welfare of a bottom-feeder. But last month, those environmentalists revealed another motive when they submitted a polished proposal for the government to buy out the farmers and move them off their land.
This is what’s really happening in Klamath — call it rural cleansing — and it’s repeating itself in environmental battles across the country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups — from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) — is no longer to protect nature. It’s to expunge humans from the countryside.
The Greens’ Strategy
The strategy of these environmental groups is nearly always the same: to sue or lobby the government into declaring rural areas off-limits to people who live and work there. The tools for doing this include the Endangered Species Act and local preservation laws, most of which are so loosely crafted as to allow a wide leeway in their implementation.
In some cases owners lose their property outright. More often, the environmentalists’ goal is to have restrictions placed on the land that either render it unusable or persuade owners to leave of their own accord.
The Klamath Basin saga began back in 1988, when two species of suckers from the area were listed under the Endangered Species Act. Things worked reasonably well for the first few years after the suckers were listed. The Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the area’s irrigation, took direction from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and tried to balance the needs of both fish and farmers. This included programs to promote water conservation and tight control over water flows. The situation was tense, but workable.
But in 1991 the Klamath basin suffered a drought, and Fish and Wildlife noted that the Bureau of Reclamation might need to do more for the fish. That was the environmentalists’ cue. Within two months, the ONRC — the pit bull of Oregon’s environmental groups — was announcing intentions to sue the Bureau of Reclamation for failure to protect the fish.
The group’s lawsuits weren’t immediately successful, in part because Fish and Wildlife continued to revise its opinions as to what the fish needed, and in part because of the farmers’ undeniable water rights, established in 1907. But the ONRC kept at it and finally found a sympathetic ear. This spring, a federal judge — in deciding yet another lawsuit brought by the ONRC, other environmental groups, fishermen and Indian tribes — ordered an unwilling Interior Department to shut the water off. The ONRC had succeeded in denying farmers the ability to make a living.
Since that decision, the average value of an acre of farm property in Klamath has dropped from $2,500 to about $35. Most owners have no other source of income. And so with the region suitably desperate, the enviros dropped their bomb. Last month, they submitted a proposal urging the government to buy the farmers off.
The council has suggested a price of $4,000 an acre, which makes it more likely owners will sell only to the government. While the amount is more than the property’s original value, it’s nowhere near enough to compensate people for the loss of their livelihoods and their children’s futures.
The ONRC has picked its fight specifically with the farmers, but its actions will likely mean the death of an entire community. The farming industry will lose $250 million this year. But property-tax revenues will also decrease under new property assessments. That will strangle road and municipal projects. Local businesses are dependent on the farmers and are now suffering financially. Should the farm acreage be cleared of people entirely, meaning no taxes and no shoppers, the community is likely to disappear.
Nor has the environment won, even at this enormous cost. The fish in the lake may have water, but nothing else does. On the 200,000 acres of parched farmland, animals belonging to dozens of species — rabbits, deer, ducks, even bald eagles — are either dead or off searching for water. And there’s no evidence the suckers are improving. Indeed, Fish and Wildlife’s most recent biological opinions, which concluded that the fish needed more water, have been vociferously questioned by independent biologists. Federal officials are now releasing some water (about 16% of the normal flow) into the irrigation canals, but it doesn’t help the farmers or wildlife much this year.
Environmentalists argue that farmers should never have been in the “dry” Klamath valley in the first place and that they put undue stress on the land. But the West is a primarily arid region; its history is one of turning inhospitable areas into thriving communities through prudent and thoughtful reallocation of water. If the Klamath farmers should be moved, why not the residents of San Diego and Los Angeles, not to mention the Southwest and parts of Montana and Wyoming? All of these communities survive because of irrigation — water that could conceivably go to some other “environmental” use.
But, of course, this is the goal. Environmental groups have spoken openly of their desire to concentrate people into cities, turning everything outside city limits into a giant park. A journalist for the Rocky Mountain News recently noted that in June the Sierra Club posted on its Web site a claim that “efficient” urban density is about 500 households an acre. This, in case you’re wondering, is about three times the density of Manhattan’s most tightly packed areas. And it’s not as if there were any shortage of open space in the West. The federal government already owns 58% of the western U.S., with state and local government holdings bumping the public percentage even higher.
Do the people who give money to environmental groups realize the endgame is to evict people from their land? I doubt it. The American dream has always been to own a bit of property on which to pursue happiness. This dream involves some compromises, including a good, balanced stewardship of nature — much like what was happening in Klamath before the ONRC arrived. But this dream will disappear — as it already is in Oregon and California — if environmental groups and complicit government agencies are allowed to continue their rural cleansing.
Scott Learn, The Oregonian June 11, 2013
The Klamath Tribes and the federal government called their water rights in southern Oregon’s Klamath Basin for the first time Monday, likely cutting off irrigation water to hundreds of cattle ranchers and farmers in the upper basin this summer.
The historic calls come after Oregon set water rights priorities earlier this year in the basin, home to one of the nation’s most persistent water wars. Drought has cut water flows in upper basin rivers to 40 percent of normal.
“This is a devastating day,” said Becky Hyde, a longtime cattle rancher in the upper basin’s Sprague River Valley. “This is such a core piece of our economy. It’s not like we can lean back on tourism and things can be OK.”
The Klamath Tribes’ water rights apply to flows in Upper Klamath Lake tributaries, including the Sprague, Williamson and Wood rivers that run through the tribes’ former reservation.
In March, after 38 years of work, the state found that the tribes’ water rights dated to “time immemorial,” making them by far the most senior. That means the tribes will get water to protect fish in traditional fishing grounds, including two species of suckers on the endangered species list.
Farmers irrigating through the federal government’s 1905 Klamath Reclamation Project, covering roughly 200,000 acres that draw from the lake, will also get water, though they’ll face restrictions, too.
But “off-project” irrigators on about 150,000 acres above the lake generally have junior water rights to reclamation-project irrigators. They’ll have to tap wells if they can or see their water supplies reduced or shut off.
Read the rest of the article here.
Montanans have an opportunity to stand together before this happens to them
While this Oregonian story is not specific to the Flathead Compact, it’s related because it’s helpful in understanding that people around the country are fighting the same battle as we are. Controlling the water means controlling the people. Where they live, what they eat, the value of their property, their livelihood, and what they can do with their property.
Montanans have the opportunity to stand firm against the federal government’s attempt to do the same with our water in this Flathead Compact. And for those of you who think it can’t happen here, a realtor friend and a former state senator just submitted the following remarks found on a newly issued surface water right in Sanders County off the Flathead Reservation:
“THIS RIGHT IS SUBJECT TO ALL PRIOR INDIAN RESERVED WATER RIGHTS OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES IN THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY. IT IS THE TRIBE’S POSITION THAT THE EXERCISE OF JUNIOR WATER RIGHTS EITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE FLATHEAD INDIAN RESERVATION MAY AFFECT THE RESERVED WATER RIGHTS OF THE TRIBE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE RESERVATION. IT IS THE TRIBE’S POSITION THAT ECONOMIC INVESTMENTS MADE IN RELIANCE UPON THIS RIGHT DO NOT CREATE IN THE APPROPRIATOR ANY EQUITY OR VESTED RIGHT AGAINST THE TRIBES. THE APPROPRIATOR IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY FINANCIAL OUTLAY OR WORK INVESTED IN A PROJECT PURSUANT TO THIS RIGHT IS AT THE APPROPRIATOR’S RISK. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS RIGHT DOES NOT REDUCE THE APPROPRIATOR’S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT” (is this also the state of Montana’s “position”?).
Can the wording on this water right make western Montana’s situation any clearer? With all the coercive threats the tribal attorneys and leadership have made concerning this compact, is it any stretch of the imagination to believe that they will aggressively defend the massive amounts of time immemorial water rights they expect to receive in this compact? What chain of events would that likely set off for all of western Montana?
Is it at all possible that the negotiating parties assumed the proposed compact was a foregone conclusion and that the implementation of this dead compact might already be in the works?
WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM ALL THIS?
Montanans must stand together on this compact before they find themselves in the same shoes as these Klamath irrigators and the San Joachin irrigators.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]