I agree. I am grateful that the other long-term benefits that were to be considered under the original Senate Klamath language will still be considered under this provision: benefits to the agricultural economy through incentives for the use of irrigation efficiency, water conservation, or other agricultural practices; wetland restoration; and improvement of upper Basin watershed and water quality. Due to the cooperative nature of all farm programs, I remain hopeful that this provision will be implemented in a manner that respects and uses the local expertise of the Klamath Basin farmers. In addition, this program should be implemented in the Klamath Basin while the administration considers the long term effects of the water savings. The original Senate Klamath language required the USDA to spend $175 million over 5 years, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency, on Klamath Basin hydrology and wetlands restoration using any applicable USDA program. The particular programs were not noted in order to provide some flexibility for the Department and basin farmers. The current language limits that flexibility, but fills an important purpose in the basin.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the benefits of the Senate Klamath language for agricultural practices and water conservation.
Share
More from Ron Wyden
Oregon’s Coast Guard works tirelessly every day to keep our coastal communities and fishermen safe, and they deserve the same tools as the rest of our military branches to operate efficiently.
I'm gratified the work to secure the end of this needless confusion for these hardworking Oregonians is in the bill.
Common sense prevailed today and that’s great news for Oregonians who shouldn’t have to worry about getting slammed with a huge tax hit on top of losing their home to wildfire.
We want to stress that this is not the time for creating new or different criteria for accessing this critical funding to support initial attack.





