Irrigators
and their
representatives
walk back
from Federal
Claims Court
Wednesday
after a day
of
testimony.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Klamath Basin witnesses in the so-called “takings” trial, some of whom who thought they were free from further testimony, were recalled to testify Wednesday in Federal Claims Court.This included Merrill potato farmer Lon Baley, who was not in the courtroom, but was still in the city and ordered to return.
The recall of the irrigators means the defense is able to ask direct questions of the irrigators for the use of their case, specifically if and when they received reimbursement from the government to compensate for the irrigation water shutoff in 2001.
Federal Judge Marian Blank Horn did remark on the inconvenience to recalling farmers, but both the U.S government defense team and attorneys for the plaintiffs — representing the Klamath area irrigators — agreed on direct questioning of irrigators by the defense.
“The farmers have come a long way, we want to get them in and out,” Horn told the court.
The case stems from the federal Bureau of Reclamation water shutoff to irrigated land in the Basin in April 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 $28-$30 million.
After finding out from the plaintiff’s special counsel Bill Ganong that Baley had not attended the trial on Wednesday, but was still in the nation’s capital, Judge Horn responded: “Find him.”
Baley attended the trial in the afternoon, taking questions from the defense about his recollection of utilizing water reduction or conservation programs in 2001, the year when irrigation water was shut off to irrigators in the Klamath Basin.
Like many who testified Wednesday, Baley said it had been too long and he couldn’t remember details about such programs.
Tulelake irrigator Michael Byrne did recall applying for federal water related programs.
“We were advised to apply for every program available,” Byrne said, who was also recalled to testify. “We applied for all the lands we owned. To the best of my knowledge, we were denied,” he said.
“I have a whole set of rejection letters,” Byrne added.
John Anderson, who testified Tuesday, was also recalled to answer questions Wednesday.
One of the defendant’s attorneys, Edward Thomas shared a portion of Anderson’s 2001 tax return with the court, asking Anderson to identify portions that would relate to such programs and potential payments.
Believing the case would be thrown out years back, Anderson and his wife, Jeanne, had gotten rid of various files related to the case, which made it hard for him to recall details, he said.
“This is too long to recall back,” Anderson said, following testimony. “A lot of that stuff that they were (presenting) I haven’t seen in years.”
Horn appeared frustrated at times with both the defense and plaintiff legal counsels, whose legal teams have each have submitted numerous objections to the others’ as to methods of questioning witnesses throughout the week.
Horn found it useful as a teaching moment for the university class she teaches, telling courtroom attendees what she told students: “If you want to learn about objections, come watch us.”
Horn was also candid about saying she volunteered to oversee the case, and hinted that a decision may take longer than the trial’s duration.
“Somebody had to get this done,” Horn said.”There’s likelihood of appeal on either side.”
Regardless of the outcome of the trial, attendance has been high and awareness widespread.
Alan I. Saltman, of Smith, Currie, & Hancock, said the size of the audience attending the trial throughout the week was “unusual.”
“Most cases in this court don’t have a big gallery,” Saltman said.
As part of the gallery, Jeanne Anderson watched as husband, John testified on Wednesday, and for the second time this week.
“I think this whole thing is providing healing for me,” she said.
“We can move on. It’s too late for some,” she added.