Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Klamath Project – BOR category.

‘Takings’ trial adjourns

Agriculture, CORRUPTION, Courts, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR

Herald and News.com

February 15, 2017

U.S. Federal Court Judge Marian Blank Horn adjourned the Klamath Basin “takings” case in Washington, D.C., on Monday, bringing an official end to the trial.

But there is still more work to be done.

“It is likely considerable time will be required to thoroughly complete review of the record and issue a final judgment,” said Klamath Falls water attorney Bill Ganong in a news release.

Further briefings based on the evidence and applicable legal standards, followed by closing oral argument, is tentatively planned for May 9, according to Ganong.

“We know it will be after May 9,” he said. “Sometime after that, the judge will issue her final opinion.”

The two-week trial started on Jan. 30 at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, within walking distance of the White House. More than 20 irrigators or those representing the interests of irrigators testified during the trial of their losses in 2001 when water was shutoff to benefit endangered fish downstream.

Bureau of Reclamation officials were listed as witnesses for the defense during the trial, and shared agreements that the water available in 2001 had to be used to meet the requirements of biological opinions issued that year to promote the health of the sucker and coho salmon, according to Ganong.

If they prevail, the irrigators may be awarded up to $30 million. More importantly to them, the irrigators hope a ruling in their favor would mean that federal agencies must balance agriculture’s loss against the benefits to fish downstream.

Class-action lawsuit documentation

Ganong said legal counsel for the plaintiff are formulating documents that will make it possible for irrigators to opt in to what has been certified as a class-action lawsuit.

Ganong and lead counsel Roger Marzulla, of Marzulla Law, based in Washington, D.C., worked on drafting a notice and a claim form for the suit on Tuesday.

“You have to file a form that says you’re joining the class and going to make a claim for the damages you suffered,” Ganong said.

Ganong said the defense, led by Kristine S. Tardiff, of the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources, will have an opportunity to review the class-action form with Marzulla Law, with a chance to discuss its contents.

“By Friday, they will either have agreed on the notice and the claim form and that will go to the judge,” Ganong said.

“If there’s a disagreement, then the judge will resolve that disagreement and issue the final form. So by Monday or Tuesday of next week, there will be an order approving the notice that goes out and the claim form that goes out.”

The claim form is not finalized yet, but Ganong said irrigators wishing to fill out a form will be able to do so locally. A deadline to file will be determined by the court.

All actions are preliminary and subject to negotiation, according to Ganong.

Ganong, who heads home today from the nation’s capital, said he was impressed by those who testified at trial.

“The sincerity and the impact on the community, that just came through clearly,” Ganong said.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Klamath BOR farmers: ‘Takings’ case moves to Washington, D.C. venue

Agriculture, Biologists for hire, CA & OR, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Lawsuits, Liberty

PNP comment: The two below articles are of great importance. The right outcome will be a major pushback on the ESA and the corrupt practices government agencies and bureaucrats use to become tyrants over private property. — Editor Liz Bowen

Holly Dillemuth

  • Jan 20, 2017

  • Herald and News.com

Klamath Basin irrigators are taking their case to a higher court.

A historic case on the ramifications of a major water shutoff to Klamath Reclamation Project irrigators in 2001 will be heard at trial from local farmers or their attorneys starting Monday, Jan. 30 in Washington, D.C.

Local water attorney Bill Ganong, who is among the first of the local group to board a flight out of Klamath Falls on Jan. 26 for the trip, has been anticipating it for more than a decade. Ganong serves as special counsel for the more than 20 who will testify during the hearing, which could last up to three weeks.

“It’s been a long journey,” Ganong said at his law office downtown last week.“We were planning on it at about 2005.”

The ‘Takings’ case

The journey will take the local group to Washington, D.C. to share testimony in what is being called the “takings” case at the U.S. Federal Court of Claims. The trial begins with testimony from area irrigators about the impact of the 2001 water shutoff to their operations.

In April 2001, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services and National Marine Fisheries Service issued biological opinions declaring that water diverted from Upper Klamath Lake by Klamath Project irrigators would endanger suckers and coho salmon, citing the Endangered Species Act.

“The agencies cannot say, ‘Don’t do it,’” Ganong said. “They can just say, ‘If you do it, here’s what’s going to happen. And then the law says, no U.S. person can allow that to happen.”

The 2001 water shutoff decision prompted the historic Klamath Bucket Brigade, a protest that drew widespread attention to the Klamath Basin. On May 7, 2001, thousands of people gathered in downtown Klamath Falls, forming a line from Lake Ewauna in Veterans Memorial Park, up Main Street, to the A Canal bridge at Crater Lake Parkway and Esplanade Avenue, to drop 50 buckets of water — one for each state in the U.S. — into the canal.

“It was a statement and it worked,” Ganong said. “It was national, live television.”

No water

Irrigation water remained shut off to Basin farmers between April and July 2001, available only at minimum levels for stock water.

“It bankrupted a lot of people or financially put them in a position where they had to sell or go find a different trade or a different occupation,” Ganong said.

Now, Klamath Basin irrigators will get their day in court.

“All of them have a story,” Ganong said.

Those attending from Klamath Falls and the surrounding areas hope to utilize their time in the nation’s capital to also meet with the Oregon congressional delegation, Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, and congressman Greg Walden.

“The people who are going back, some of them are just giddy almost,” Ganong said. “They’ve been waiting so long and to finally have it come to trial … it’s a big deal. It’s just a big deal.”

A long time coming, ‘too late’ for some

But not everyone can make the trip.

“We had to go through a process to add some witnesses who we hadn’t identified before, because some of our original people we identified have passed away or have medical or age-related issues that prevent them from traveling,” Ganong said.

“We’ve just lost a lot of people in the ag community,” Ganong added.

“It’s taken so long for these people to get to this point and hopefully compensated for what they lost. For many of them, it’s almost symbolic now.”

Ganong said farmers could expect to see a total $28 million to $30 million if a decision is handed down in their favor.

But he alluded to a favorable outcome for farmers being more than financial.

“Almost all of the farmers going back — maybe all of them — they’re third- or fourth-generation on the same farm,” Ganong said. “It is in their DNA.”

A long and difficult road

Ganong detailed a lengthy history of the case, which passed through the hands of two previous judges, and now is now in the hands of a third.

“The first judge for approximately four or five years, apparently had some medical conditions that interfered with her ability to perform her job as a judge,” Ganong said. “So the case got filed and it literally, it just sat. Nothing really happened for … it seems like it was four years.”

Stopping to recall the name of the judge, he couldn’t.

“It’s been too long,” Ganong said.

The judge retired and the case was assigned to the late Francis Allegra.

“In the course of the next few years, there was a lot that took place, most of it in writing motions,” Ganong said.

Claims dismissed

Ganong said Allegra dismissed the claims that said, one, the U.S. government took property from farmers, and two, that farmers were protected under the Klamath Compact.

“He ultimately decided that we didn’t have a case so he dismissed it,” Ganong said.

“In his opinion, the United States owned the water and could do whatever it wanted with it. He found it in their favor.”

An appeal to Allegra’s decision was made, and over the course of time, the case was handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals with assistance from the Oregon Supreme Court.

“That court started looking at our appeal and decided they had some questions of how Oregon law applied to this case so they then referred it to the Oregon Supreme Court and that was about a two-year detour,” Ganong said. “The Oregon Supreme Court ruling was very favorable to us.”

Oregon court ruling

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the water from the Klamath Basin was property, and that it was taken from farmers.

The court landed back in the hands of Allegra, who died in 2015.

The “takings” case has been with Judge Marian Horn since, who set a firm court date in the face of requests to continue the case further.

“She took the bull by the horns,” Ganong said.

Ganong is hopeful of a favorable outcome for farmers.

“If we prevail, then going forward, the federal government will have to weigh the cost of the decisions it makes on endangered species and other federal laws,” Ganong said.

“They haven’t had to at least consider financially the impact on the community when they withhold water or delay the delivery of water and this will turn that around.

“This will not change the law,” he emphasized. “The United States has a duty to do whatever is necessary to prevent the extinction or loss of threatening endangered species, including taking water, including taking land, including taking logging.

“What this will do is cause the United States to pay private property owners for the loss of their water or their land or their ability to harvest timber. And it could be an enormous amount of money.”


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Klamath BOR farmers: Testimony opens in ‘takings’ trial in D.C. Irrigators lay out their case

Agriculture, CA & OR, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Lawsuits, Liberty

Herald and News.com

Gerry Obrien

January 31, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The federal courtroom chambers were full on Monday for opening arguments kicking off the “takings” case hearing in Washington, D.C.

More than 25 Basin irrigators — or those who represent them — are scheduled to testify in the consolidated case at the U.S. Federal Court of Claims over the course of the next three weeks. Testimony may also be heard from Bureau of Reclamation officials from Klamath Falls and Sacramento.

“It’s been a long time coming,” remarked Judge Marian Blank Horn. “I can assure you, it doesn’t always take this long.”

The case is formally known as Klamath Irrigation District et al v. the United States and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association and John Anderson Farms, Inc. et al v. United States.

Horn, seated beneath the federal court’s seal, expressed a desire to hear the interests on both sides of the case.

“It’s my responsibility to get through this expeditiously,” Horn added. “We do intend to be careful with it.”

The case stems from the federal water shutoff to irrigated land in the Basin in 2001 to protect fish downstream, thanks to two biological opinions that protect endangered species. Irrigators claim the action damaged their livelihoods and are seeking damages that may total $25 million.

Mark Stuntebeck, former manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, was one of the first three to testify for the plaintiffs Monday.

The defendant’s attorney Edward Thomas questioned Stuntebeck about the impact of the water shutoff.

“The farmers were shocked,” Stuntebeck said. “They’d lost their livelihoods, that’s how they made their living.”

Stuntebeck went further to explain the social and economic impacts to the community.

“There were suicides,” he said. “There were foreclosures on farms. I would describe it as pictures I remember seeing of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.”

Marc Van Camp, a licensed engineer and certified water rights examiner, testified on the irrigator’s behalf, too, sharing that based on methods he used in 1992 and 1994 — relatively similar drought years — he identified that full deliveries of irrigation water could have been made to water users in the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001, were it not for two biological opinions submitted by U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

During opening arguments, Kristine S. Tardiff, of the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources Division, said that neither side can contest that 2001 was a difficult water year.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Liz Writes Life 1-3-17

Klamath Project - BOR, Klamath River & Dams, Liz Writes Life

Jan. 3, 2017

Liz Writes Life

Published in Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka, CA

It has taken 15 years, but a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge got it right. Judge Marilyn Blank Horn concluded the federal government did indeed take Klamath farmers legal property right – water – in 2001.

Early in 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rendered a Biological Opinion that the sucker fish in the Upper Klamath Lake would suffer harm, if the Bureau of Reclamation supplied the legal water to the federal Klamath Project farmers. The local sucker fish were and are listed with the Endangered Species Act. (Counter to modern myth — the 1996 federal ESA listing of coho salmon was not part of this Biological Opinion. It was all about sucker fish.)

So, the BOR stopped all irrigation water to Klamath Project farmers in April 2001, which is over 200,000 acres of farm land. The dry A Canal also did not deliver water to many off-project or other property owners. As a result of the Klamath Project farmers losing their water, the lower refuges also went dry affecting and killing 1,000s of birds and wildlife. It was tremendous devastation.

Locals said that suckers thrive better in lower levels of lake water. The feds ignored their voices. We could see that the science of the government bureaucrats was fraudulent.

Guess what, within a few years scientists had to admit sucker fish populations were decreasing and it was because there was too much water in their lakes. Ugh!

It is so frustrating to watch government agencies with their bureaucrat leadership get it wrong and destroy communities of humans and wildlife in their arrogance. But, I have digressed.

So the 1,400 Klamath Project farmers went the entire spring, summer and fall with no irrigation water. There were several suicides by farmers. About 200 farms were lost or sold. Other businesses floundered and 1,000s of employees had to migrate elsewhere.

I asked Ray Haupt, our Dist. 5 Siskiyou Co. Supervisor, about this decision and he was thrilled. “It is the first time I have seen a judge rule in favor of property rights over the ESA regulations,” he said. “The feds tried to argue it was a ‘regulatory takings,’ but this decision shows it is a ‘property takings’ under the 4th Amendment.”

So, this is a win of immense proportion and there will be a trial to decide how much money the farmers will be compensated. Yay!

Ray said the decision is extremely significant, because this decision will set a precedent at the federal appellant court level. Yep, the water to the Klamath Project farmers is a property right and even the ESA cannot take property rights away from citizens.

I consider the takings of the Klamath Project water as a threat from the federal agencies and that they were testing to see how far they could go to put fear into the hearts of the farmers, other property owners and businesses. It is all about control of the people. We must be vigilant to make sure our government agencies serve the people and do not become the tyrant over the people.

On May 7, 2001, more than 18,000 people showed up in Klamath Falls forming a mile-long Bucket Brigade protest through town. I believe California Congressman Wally Herger was the first to fill a bucket from the waters of Lake Elwha. The buckets were then handed from one-individual-to-another up the streets to the bridge over the wide A Canal, where the water buckets were dumped into the empty A Canal. It was illegal for that canal to carry any water. I was there. Many from Siskiyou County went to support the Bucket Brigade. I have photos. No, Federal marshals did not arrest us, but it was a meaningful act of defiance and civil disobedience, which is legal under the U.S. Constitution.

Hooray for the Klamath Bucket Brigade. All who participated were right!

New laws

Believe it or not, 900 new laws have gone into effect Jan. 1, 2017. Last year, the CA. State Legislature sent Gov. Jerry Brown 1,059 pieces of legislation. He signed 898 of those bills, vetoed 159 and two became law without his signature. I have a sneaking hunch that many of us are outlaws and don’t even know it! No, it’s not funny!

A few weeks ago, I discussed the new assault gun and ammunition laws. I will mention a few more new laws that might affect us.


North Carolina waged a war over restrooms and gender identity, but California did not have that fight as the legislature approved AB 1732. It requires all single-toilet bathrooms in businesses and public agencies to be gender neutral. So you can be whatever!

Cell phones

This is a big one and pretty darned specific. While driving a vehicle you are no longer permitted to hold a wireless telephone or electronic wireless communication device. It must be mounted in the 7-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver (so no fair grabbing it and cheating) or in a 5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver. Sorry, I don’t get either one of these. Another option is to affix the device to the dashboard in a place that does not obstruct the driver’s clear view and does not interfere with the deployment of an airbag. Guess we better get those Bluetooth devices!

Oh, the law does allow a driver to operate one of these devices with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the finger, but you can’t hold it.


I have just learned there is such a thing as powdered alcohol and it can be reconstituted using water. Wonder what would happen if it was reconstituted with alcohol? It has already been banned in 31 states and it is now illegal to possess, sell or make in California.

Liz Bowen is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515.

# # #

No Comments

Klamath: Irrigators win water decision

Agriculture, Air, Climate & Weather, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: This is huge folks, HUGE !!! It is just terrible that it took 15 years to get to the right decision! — Editor Liz Bowen

  • MICHAEL DOYLE (Klamath Falls) Herald & News


AP file photo

Phil Norton, manager of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges in Tulelake, Calif., on July 17, 2001, walks across the mud flats that were created when water from the Klamath River was cut off.


Northern California and Oregon irrigation districts have won a key round in a long-running legal battle as they seek compensation for their loss of water in the Klamath River Basin.

In a 53-page opinion, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marilyn Blank Horn concluded the federal government’s 2001 diversion of Klamath River Basin water amounted to a “physical taking” of the irrigation districts’ property. Horn’s ruling Wednesday rejected the government’s argument that the diversion instead amounted to a “regulatory taking.”

The technical-sounding difference could shape the final dollar-and-cents’ outcome. As attorney Josh Patashnik put it in a Santa Clara Law Review article, a judge’s determination of a physical rather than regulatory taking “often plays a central role in determining whether property owners are paid compensation.”

“The distinction is important because physical takings constitute per se takings and impose a ‘categorical duty’ on the government to compensate the owner, whereas regulatory takings generally require balancing and ‘complex factual assessments,’ ” Horn noted.

Horn’s decision marks the latest turn in a roller-coaster case first filed Oct. 11, 2001, by the Klamath Irrigation District, individual farmers and other water users in the region straddling Northern California and southern Oregon. The case went back and forth and was originally dismissed but then resurrected in 2011 by an appeals court.

The districts and farmers, represented by the D.C.-based Marzulla Law firm, contend the government owes compensation, under the Fifth Amendment, for the temporary cessation of water deliveries in 2001 in order to protect endangered species including the Lost River sucker. The various legal and procedural complications are enumerated in the 474 separate court filings made since the first lawsuit landed in the court located near the White House.

Drawing support from past Western water cases, Horn noted that government officials employed “physical means” to cut off the farmers’ water.

“By refusing to release water from Upper Klamath Lake and Klamath River, the government prevented water that would have, under the status quo ante, flowed into the Klamath Project canals and to the plaintiffs,” Horn wrote.

Horn added that she was in “no way making any determinations as to the nature or scope of plaintiffs’ alleged property rights,” which will be figured out in a trial.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


1 Comment

Klamath Basin water use in federal dispute

CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR

PNP comment: So nice to see this type of corruption exposed. Over $32 million — outrageous !!! — Editor Liz Bowen

The Argus Observer

Oct. 14, 2016

  • SALEM (AP) — A watchdog arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior says the Bureau of Reclamation lacked the authority to enter into an agreement with the Klamath Water and Power Agency on water use, and that consequently $32.2 million spent by the agency over seven years “was a waste of funds.”

The department insisted that it did have the authority.The dispute between the inspector general’s office and its own department has been referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution.

In its report released this week, the inspector general’s office recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation discontinue funding water-supplementation activities in the Klamath Basin unless it has specific legal authority. The Interior Department noted that the cooperative agreement with the Klamath Water and Power Agency already ended, on May 2. The Klamath Project is a federal dam project in southern Oregon and northern California to manage the flows of the Klamath River.

The inspector general’s office said parts of the program paid irrigators for idling land and for deepening and drilling wells, and that it largely benefited the irrigators instead of fish and wildlife, the intended benefactors.

In its response, the Interior Department said water savings realized through the cooperative agreement “essentially provided the same fish and wildlife benefits as the acquisition of third party water rights.”

The reduction in surface water demand through land idling and wells, the department argued, increased “the water available in Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake Reservoir to meet requirements for the endangered short-nose and Lost River suckers and in the Klamath River for the endangered coho salmon.”


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Local landowner, Rex Cozzalio, talks Klamath River flows

Klamath Project - BOR, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: Sorry, I meant to post this last week, when Rex Cozzalio sent it to me. It is still good info to have from some one who lives below the hydro-electric dams. His family has been there for 4 generations. Thanks for sending Rex. — Editor Liz Bowen

Aug. 21, 2016

Good evening all,

Well, now that we have the hottest days of the year and lowest tributary levels, dam removal proponents have jacked the flows in the Klamath up, using water from the dams that ‘don’t store water’, to trigger a large run of salmon waiting at the ocean up during the normally and naturally worst conditions possible.  What does that suggest?  The only thing they would have liked better are hot night temperatures which we often also get near this time of year, allowing the day/night averaging downriver Klamath water temperatures to rise exacerbating conditions conducive to disease during the period of minimal upriver available spawning habitat.  Likely better to hold the water back to keep salmon at the coast as historically occurred until the natural conditions alter.  However, whichever ‘opinion’ is more accurate, if sincere about intended outcome, both inescapably reveal the agenda of dams’ removals to be totally hypocritical.

As sent to some of you previously, the current data being produced now proves the tremendous improvement dams have made to the historic regional fisheries’ habitat, which local experience and salmon return statistics to the upper river, before and after, have long since repeatedly shown.  Only problem is, like the prior studies, experience, and historical documentation available before, that new data seems to have NO current intent of ‘analysis’ and NO revisions allowed to the ‘Biological Opinions’ until AFTER dams are scheduled to be removed, and the damages to environment, citizenry, property, economics, and reason are irreversible.  Under their current iteration of intimidation, blackmail, and compelled dams’ removals, the one constant is the complete lack of accountability or liability for the losses to regional environment, life, and vested property.   The newly created ‘Dam Removal Entity’ so far is comprised entirely of the same self-benefitting removal proponents responsible for fabricating the removal agenda and ‘premise’ to begin with.  Under their ‘selection’ of taxpayer paid insurance for removals, it will be up to individual damaged parties to lose everything suing first the ‘company’ for compensation, and then the ‘pennyless non-profit’ DRE when the insurance company’s narrowly defined liability ‘protections’ being offered only to government agencies and ‘agreement’ organizers doesn’t extend to the communities and public.

No Comments

Klamath BOR director leaving

CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR

PNP comment: This is shocking. Didn’t know a federal agency could move so fast. This BOR director met with Attorney Larry Kogan, who represents the Klamath Irrigation District (KID) along with two staff from CA. Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s office on Thursday in Sacramento — and on Friday the BOR director is gone! There is backlash going on within the Bureau of Reclamation and maybe there will be an expose’ of corruption as well. (See the following article for the situation.)

Therese O’Rourke Bradford is leaving the Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls.

BOR Spokeswoman Laura Williams made the announcement Friday.

O’Rourke Bradford did not say where her new position is. Her last day is May 28, according to BOR Spokesman Shane Hunt.

“I have appreciated the opportunity to work for Reclamation in such an important position,” O’Rourke Bradford said in a statement. “However, for personal reasons I am electing to take a position that better supports my personal situation.”

O’Rourke Bradford joined the BOR Klamath Basin Area Office in June 2015.

Williams said Brian Person will become acting area manager on Monday. Person will oversee C Canal flume construction and ensure water is delivered to the Klamath Project, she said.

Person served as acting area manager for the Klamath Basin Area Office prior to O’Rourke Bradford being hired last year. The BOR has employed Person for more than 10 years.

Federico Barajas, area manager for the BOR Northern California Area Office, will oversee the hiring process and placement of a new area manager.

The Klamath Basin area manager oversees irrigation water deliveries to the Klamath Project and Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Complex and works with Basin-wide stakeholders to resolve water conflicts.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments