The initial ruling tells us that
patent water rights, signed to war veteran homesteaders by U.S. Presidents, are
not worth the paper they were printed on.  Let's hope that higher level
courts come to their senses and become more protective of our property rights.

EarthJustice likes this ruling.  That says it all.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:33 AM

To: [email-masked]

Subject: H&N's: Ruling in takings case not the end

Herald and News: Klamath Falls, Oregon

http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2005/09/02/news/community_news/cit4.txt

Ruling in takings case not the end

Published September 2, 2005

Klamath Basin irrigators involved in a federal takings case and their attorney
are regrouping after their main claim was rejected earlier this week.

"Of course we are disappointed with the judge's ruling,
but the case goes on," said Steve Kandra,
president of the Klamath Water Users Association. "We just go on to the
next phase."

That next phase could be an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, said Roger Marzulla, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing 13
agricultural landowners and 14 water, drainage or irrigation districts in the
case.

But he first needs to meet with his clients and see what legal
avenue they want to pursue. He plans to meet with them late next week.

"There is no announcement until next week," he said. "Now we are
all trying to digest this thing."

In a 52-page ruling, U.S. Federal Claims Court Judge Francis M. Allegra Wednesday
rejected a $100 million takings claim brought by Klamath Basin irrigators. They
filed the claim in response to the federal government's shutoff of irrigation
water in 2001 to keep more water for coho salmon and
two kinds of sucker fish, all protected by the Endangered Species Act.

"This ruling is important because it rejects a pretty extreme view of
property rights and water law," said Todd True, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm involved in the
case.

Allegra ruled that the irrigators had no property right to the water, going
against the irrigator's argument that diverting it for fish was an
unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.

"The courts are saying you have to look to the contracts and not
constitutional law," said Glen Spain, whose Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations intervened into the case in March 2005.

Allegra said the irrigators may have a contractual claim to
the water, but suggested the case was weak and they "face an uphill battle."

Allegra ruled that fishermen and American Indian tribes also
had to be considered by federal water managers, along with fish and wildlife -
key arguments by the government and the fishermen.

"Almost all of these decisions have some good and some bad to them," Kandra said.

Lynn Long, a member of the Klamath Water Users Association board of directors,
said the ruling was a bad decision.

"I would give you a bigger perspective, that it is bad
for America when citizens are deprived of the ability to make a living,"
he said.

He said courts have been too liberal in interpreting property rights laws,
causing problems for farmers and areas of the country that rely heavily on
agriculture.

True, however, said the ruling reflects a more mainstream
legal view about property rights.

- The Associated Press contributed to this report.

_______________________________________________

This list is for discussion of property rights issues
and related subjects. It is provided by Citizens Alliance for Property Rights,
but message content is the responsibility of the sender, not CAPR. Do not infer
that posters are officials, members, or even friends of CAPR. This is an unmoderated list. Anything you send to the list will go
immediately to all subscribers, unless  the
filters think it may be spam. Please observe the common sense rules of civil
discussion.

Subscribe to our main list (Capr-announce) to receive
meeting announcements, etc. from CAPR. Those items will not be sent to this list.

Capr-discussion mailing list

[email-masked]

http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/capr-discussion