Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.


                                  Attack Planned and Carried Out?

Commentary by Rudy Hiley, Tulelake, for KBC News 5/21/2020


Followed by: Ottawa blocks Chinese takeover of Aecon on security grounds


An Environmentalist’s Vision for the Klamath Basin was the title of Andy Kerr’s July 1993 presentation to the Tulelake Rotary.  It threatened a future in which the entire paradigm of agriculture in the Klamath Basin would be upset and forever changed.  Basin irrigators where ridiculedmarginalized and it was foretold that in the end they would become isolated.  Interestingly, four dams on the Klamath River have been defined and demeaned in much the same Saul Alinski fashion.  


It was conveyed that a prejudicial if not bigoted perception already exists wherein many urban voters look upon us, if not rural people in general as intolerant, obsolete, potentially paranoid, deniers and out of step with reality.  Also, that it is believed that European style farming as practiced in the Klamath Basin is environmentally unsound.  Furthermore, that many of that same constituency are either ambivalent towards or see no value in the Basin agriculture community or its future; regardless of how hard they work or even what they actually provide or accomplish.  Because of changing societal values the audience was left to consider that it didn’t matter if Klamath agriculture resists, surrenders or cooperates, in the end Basin agriculture would never be the same.


Shockingly and tragically those threats continue to be in large part realized and materialized.  It is doubtful that Klamath irrigators would have been abandoned and left to face the ruinous restriction of irrigation water deliveries, overwhelming stress, alienation and legal expenses without the outrageously dubious underlying assertion that the naturally putrid Klamath Lake system historically and consistently remained at a near clear and full level prior to the arrival of Europeans and their agricultural practices.


So it would seem plausible that there had to have been at least some form of cooperation ongoing between private, public (federal, state and local etc. government), various organizations, sovereign nations and entities etc.  Organizations and entities as such acting across state lines in order to keep dark, dubious and devastating contentions in play against U.S. citizens. The most basic honest human and scientific inquiry, thought and historical research (if allowed) should have easily refuted such assertions or at the very least reduced them rightfully to the status of wild unproven theory.


It is conceivable then that cooperation and consensus (if it, in fact, exists or existed) may well have had the illegal and devastating consequence of Restraining Basin Commerce.  One would think that such restraint, accomplished across state lines, with negative intent while minimizing whistleblower complaints and conflicting scientific input should have invited a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation.   There is also the ever-present probability of pursuing civil RICO litigation.  It should be noted that Civil RICO actions can carry triple damage awards.   It goes without saying that the resultant injury, harm, loss and damage to United States citizens, businesses etc. and their futures could easily approach billions of dollars.

The nature of actions pointed toward the restriction of irrigation water flows have so far been purportedly (at least in part) conducted in the name of fulfilling Native American hunting and gathering rights as well as endangered or threatened species protection.  If irrigation curtailment and its resultant severe harm to citizens of the U.S. were clearly, truly, honorably and with honest balance undertaken in concert with sound science while assuring the protection of constitutional rights, that would be one thing.  If on the other hand a constitutional and civil rights tragedy is being perpetrated for incursive etc. reasons, that would be an entirely different matter.  Especially if those involved were acting above and outside of their governmental power and authority.  An internet look helps to nicely spell out what is being sacrificed in the Klamath Basin, by whom and by what means:  http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/kogan/MemorandumCongressMustConsentRatifyKlamathRiverDamRemoval022519.pdf


 A pattern has emerged which can only be invisible if one chooses not to see it.  Basin agriculture has been threatened and attacked on many fronts, most of which would appear to seek to deprive the agricultural community and those associated of those things necessary to sustain and continue in the ownership, use and enjoyment of their lives and property.  All of this with negligible positive species and restoration results.

Abraham Lincoln once said: “… if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher.  As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die by suicide”.  That has turned out to be quite an intuitive prediction indeed.


There is a choice though.  One can accept the newest symbolic assurance of a happy, balanced, fair and water-rich future which of course includes the decimation of four Klamath River dams.  That may be worth considering if it wasn’t for the reality that some involved or those with abusive litigation potential most likely won’t rest until complete control of all Klamath Basin waters is wrestled away from Basin agriculture.  Then there was the logging industry relief related bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery (and Economic Stability) Act and Agreement (settlement) which was ratified by congress yet quickly fell apart.  As it turned out weaponized Spotted Owl issues were involved and some of those with actual decision making collaborative power in the issues simply did not want any logging to take place, so the concerned economy continued to be Restrained. The word “recovery” says it all.  Some appeared to simply seek recovery from human influence.


I believe that Dave Muerer, currently of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, should have been pretty well informed about the failures of that particular “collaborative agreement”.  But maybe it is possible that he could have actually worked for Congressman Herger yet still know nothing about that.  Hopefully when he worked toward dam removal with the Canadian concern AECON Corporation he was unaware that they were being absorbed by the Chinese conglomerate known as CCCI, an arm of the Chinese government (see: Canada Blocks AECON Sale to China).  Thank God that the Canadian government was awake enough to shoot that sale down over national security concerns.  Paying one of our military adversaries to take our dams out would be unique indeed.


So maybe the Klamath victims should seek another form of settlement instead, through civil RICO.  Something needs to be done and soon since out of control governments have been known to possess the power necessary to bring about massive levels of starvation, deprivations, destruction and death; for albeit noble and so-called sustainable reasons.


Respectfully Submitted,

Rudy Hiley

Tulelake, CA  


Ottawa blocks Chinese takeover of Aecon on security grounds

China's ambassador to Canada has said Canada is being too 'sensitive' about Chinese capital flows into Canada, and likened the national security review to 'looney' behaviour

OTTAWA — The federal government has rejected the $1.5-billion sale of Aecon Group Inc. to a state-backed Chinese buyer, effectively bowing to fierce opposition to the deal as Canada navigates sensitive trade talks with the U.S.

In a brief statement seen by the National Post Wednesday, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains said Ottawa would block the deal for security reasons, adding that Canada is “open to international investment that creates jobs and increases prosperity, but not at the expense of national security.” The decision was first reported by Bloomberg News.

In a statement Wednesday evening, the Toronto-based firm said it was disappointed with the government’s decision.

“Aecon is and will continue to be a leading player in the Canadian construction and infrastructure market,” said John Beck, Aecon’s president and CEO.

“Through our proposed transaction with CCCI, we had outlined a vision in which Aecon would be better able to compete with the many large global construction companies actively working in Canada.”

Aecon shares plunged more than 13 per cent to trade at $14.93 Thursday morning.




A representative of CCCI, which is a subsidiary of China Communications Construction Company Ltd. (CCCC), said Wednesday that it had no immediate comment about Ottawa’s decision to block the takeover.

China’s embassy in Ottawa responded to Wednesday’s move by warning it wasn’t good for the countries’ business relationship and that it would “seriously undermine the confidence” of Chinese investors.

The decision comes after months of intense opposition to the transaction by Members of Parliament, business groups and domestic construction companies, who argued the deal could give China access to sensitive Canadian IP, and would make local firms less competitive in future project bids. Aecon has contracts to carry out refurbishment and maintenance work on various nuclear facilities, as well as build and maintain several telecommunications lines.

The financial holding division of China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. (CCCC) proposed to buy the Canadian construction firm last year. The Chinese state-owned enterprise is 64 per cent owned by the Chinese government.

China observers have said that state-owned enterprises effectively operate as an arm of the Chinese government, exposing Canada to potential risks if given access to sensitive assets.

“SOEs form an integral part of China’s national strategy for global expansion,” Duanjie Chen, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said at a recent event in Ottawa. “That is a major reason why China has created monstrous SOEs through internal mergers in the first place.”

In February, Ottawa launched a full-scale national security review of the transaction. Such probes investigate foreign-led transactions based on whether it will impact Canada’s defence capabilities or create the potential for proprietary technologies to be transferred outside of Canada.

Aecon, for its part, has maintained that its contracts only involve low-level maintenance and construction work, and don’t involve access to classified IP. It has also rejected claims that Chinese state-backed firms would make local companies uncompetitive, arguing that U.S., South Korean and European conglomerates already have a heavy footprint in the Canadian construction space.

Ottawa’s rejection comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks to forge trade ties with China, and as Canada continues to navigate sensitive talks with the U.S. around the North American Free Trade Agreement.

U.S. officials have been critical of Trudeau’s approval of Chinese state-backed purchases of Canadian technology companies in the past, including the 2017 purchase of Norsat International Inc. by Chinese firm Hytera Communications Corp., Ltd., a privately held company 52-per cent-owned owned by Chinese billionaire Chen Qingzhou.

Chinese ambassador to Canada Lu Shaye has said that China would accept a rejection of the Aecon deal, but would expect from Canada a detailed rationale for the decision. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press/File

Norsat had contracts with U.S. Department of Defence, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Army, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, NATO, Ireland’s Department of Defence, and others. Trudeau also approved the takeover of Montreal-based ITF Technologies, a fibre-laser technology company, by Hong Kong based O-Net Communications in March 2017, reversing a decision by the former prime minister to block the deal.

U.S. officials were less critical of the Aecon acquisition by CCCC, but had suggested a full-scale review was necessary. Aecon has several contracts to install and maintain various telecommunications lines with Bell Canada, some of which traverse the Canada-U.S. border.

“We do have shared infrastructure that needs to be looked at,” said Micheal Wessel, the commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission who said he was not speaking on behalf of the government body.

Chinese ambassador to Canada Lu Shaye had said Canada is being too “sensitive” about Chinese capital flows into Canada, and likened the national security review to “looney” behaviour by Canadian officials.

Lu has said in past media interviews that China would accept a rejection of the deal, but said it would expect from Canada a detailed rationale for the decision. The country has long argued that China unfairly faces a deeper level of scrutiny in foreign takeovers than its peers.

“We just hope the Canadian side could adopt the same standard for Chinese companies compared with other foreign companies,” Lu said.

Trudeau failed to kick off official trade talks with China during a recent trip to Beijing, after trying to include various social, environmental and gender-based stipulations into the talks. China rejected those clauses outright and suggested Canada stick with economic and trade-based discussions.

Shares of Aecon, which helped build Toronto’s iconic CN Tower, declined in recent weeks to the lowest since the deal was announced in October on concern that it would be blocked. Aecon’s construction work includes several sectors that could impact national security, including building out the nation’s telecommunications networks.

Aecon closed at $17.34 in Toronto trading Wednesday, 14 per cent below the $20.27 a share offer from CCCC International Holding Ltd. to acquire the construction firm. Before the recent declines, there was widespread speculation in Canada that the deal might be approved as Trudeau sought warmer ties with China.

With files from Bloomberg News and The Canadian Press



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

Home Contact


              Page Updated: Friday May 22, 2020 02:51 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2019, All Rights Reserved