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.
Scott Valley Protect Our Water – POW – in Siskiyou County, California
Feb 1, 2017
Herald and News.com
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