Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Draft Environmental Assessment Implementation of Klamath Project Operating Procedures 2020-2023, Klamath Project, Oregon/California, Interior Region 10 California Great Basin, CGB-EA-2020-018
from Rex Cozzalio, Hornbrook, CA
Resubmitted due to Bureau error 4/14/2020
Based upon prior BOR Biological Opinion submitted comments, which to date have never yet been acknowledged, addressed, or even published within essentially unaltered ‘final decision’ documents, it has become highly questionable that non special interest submissions are even read, much less considered. It is also disconcerting that of all the resident and non-resident ‘stakeholders’ weighing in on the ‘decisions’, it is those most vested, experienced, and directly impacted who are allowed the least voice or input. Nevertheless, in consideration of all those, the following comments are being submitted:
BOR states “During the three-year interim period, the agencies will collect, review, and analyze additional scientific information, as well as work with the Tribes, key stakeholders, and other agencies to better inform the longer-term ESA consultation and the transition to the Operations Plan resulting from that consultation.”, and further;
“Reclamation has prepared this EA to
determine whether implementing the Interim
Plan and acquisition of Project water
supplies as described in Section 2 may
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.” (BOR Draft Section 1)
this 'Plan', the CURRENT empirical data
emerging from the Interim Klamath Monitoring
Agreement that is now DEFINITIVELY REFUTING
the 'purposes' for increased water
confiscation is knowingly and effectively
obfuscated until AFTER dams and deep water
lake environmental benefits are destroyed in
pursuit of supporting KHSA 'rewilding' at
any cost. In doing so, BOR intentionally
seeks to delay formal recognition and
incorporation of those currently empirically
evidenced benefits until AFTER policy based
‘rewilding’ Hydro-Project destruction, at
which point those lost benefits are
intentionally rendered no longer recoverable
and thereby ‘officially’ irrelevant.
IF the current data regarding failed UKL 'restored' sucker 'projections' and Klamath River pulse flow certomyxa shasta rebound, sentinel fish studies, marginal polychaete disruption, Hydro-Project IMPROVED downstream water quality conditions, and the now evidenced potential INCREASED risk from instream microcystis with dams destroyed were 'considered' here, MUCH of which has ALREADY been referenced in prior Bi-Op submissions, they would CONTRADICT the current politically and judicially motivated need for 'interim' further confiscation of Project water. As it stands, by 'deferring' incorporation of the current data, BOR's 'alternative' IGNORES and NEGATES the best and most effective evidenced empirical science in favor of already once acknowledged defective constructed 'modeled' hypothesis and their resultant judicial decrees. In doing so, BOR abrogates its duty to the best public interest, eliminates implementation of far more beneficial environmental alternatives, and creates UNDUE HARDSHIP on the cumulative severely impacted 'Human Environment' BOR is obligated to protect.
Typical with BOR past actions displaying
bias in concert with Hydroelectric Project
destruction and consistent with all 'sister
Agency' previous KHSA signatories’ report
'introductions', BOR here (1.4.2) convolutes
the actual history of the KHSA, LEAVING OUT
critical parts. The 2010 KHSA and the 2016
'amended' KHSA are in fact TWO COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT 'agreements', between different
parties under completely altered terms.
Under the 'new' KHSA, relatively NONE of the
original restoration or mitigations
previously associated with the
'intrinsically tied' KBRA will occur, NO
funding is assured, and the fabricated
original conditionally limited EIR projected
outcomes are NO LONGER APPLICABLE.
further stating that License Transfer was
"partially approved" displays either a
complete lack of knowledge or a constructed
intent to deceive the public and/or frame a
false 'paper trail' official record. In
assigning spilt Project numbers to even
allow addressing the application, PacifiCorp
specifically REQUESTED that the designations
NOT be made permanent until AFTER any such
'Transfer' is approved, which as of the date
of this document HAS NOT OCCURRED.
BOR is fully aware that the quoted KRRC shell corporation holds itself harmless from liability for damages caused as its own defined condition, and has not yet even been approved as a legal principle in the FERC process. Extracting the KRRC quote out of context… 'followed by environmental restoration', implying that it is somehow analogous to the prior KBRA requirements, is irresponsible and inaccurate, suggesting ‘restoration’ requirements which DO NOT EXIST under the current KHSA/KRRC. KRRC has no funds, obligation, or stated intentions to execute extensive 'restoration' or 'mitigations' for damages, and FERC, which BOR refers to as the lead Agency, holds itself harmless under the Federal Powers Act, leaving the vast majority of sustained damages to others and the environment unprotected and unmitigated.
By inaccurately portraying 'history', BOR in fact intentionally distorts public ability to reach a rational conclusion of outcome, inferring that 'mitigations', 'restoration', and accountability for damages are available under 'agreement' terms which in reality DO NOT EXIST, thereby manufacturing erroneous information as the 'justification' for a predetermined 'draft' decision.
Section 2.1, BOR utilizes many subjective
terms as a basis for its decisions, such as
‘would generally be expected', 'deemed
important', ‘thought to provide', and
'potentially'. Continued opinion of
'similar impacts' regarding 20,000 acre feet
previously added to that ALREADY taken from
Project irrigators in the prior B.O.
'revisions' in which BOR ALREADY IGNORED the
MAJOR 'human impacts’ to Project irrigators,
it appears easy for BOR’s unaccountable and
unsupported leap to 'relatively similar
effects' regarding the loss of 3,000 more
acre feet. In undeniably deceptive
maneuvering, the 2.1 statement aimed at
Project irrigators is that ‘only’ an
‘additional’ 3,000 acre feet will come from
irrigators, whereas 17,000 is from UKL.
However, buried in subsequent sections is
the REALITY of where the water will ACTUALLY
be deducted. In ANY given year proposed
INCREASED amounts will be deducted from
available stored water allocations, the
likelihood of insufficient allocated water
INCREASES. Given an inability in those
years to meet also statistically challenged
‘minimum’ lake levels, and subsequent to
dams’ destruction, it is the IRRIGATORS who
will carry the entire additional burden.
According to current above described studies, and from Bi.Op. referenced contracted researchers’ own STATEMENTS, there is now a presumption of CONTINUING, if not INCREASED demanded REQUIRED pulse flows AFTER dams are destroyed. In BOR’s ‘alternative’ implementation and REFUSAL to address current data, BOR irresponsibly paints an ERRONEOUS scenario that does NOT conform to a supportable projected realistic present or future outcome.
Clearly NOT in the 'public interest', by BOR and 'Services' extending this revised Bi.Op. and delaying the review and incorporation of current science offering potentially far greater beneficial resource solutions, rather than locking this special interest 'collaborative' 'alternative operation' in place until AFTER dams destruction, in fact serves THEMSELVES and their 'collaborative' benefit, NOT the public's or the environment.
2.2.5, prior 'forced flushes' have ALREADY
been shown minimally effective in disease
reduction and typically creating a REBOUND
disease effect, and yet by NOT considering
recent data, THOSE WASTED FLOWS CONTINUE to
the detriment of ALL ‘sustainable’ human and
Meanwhile, BOR artificial floods prescribing 'environmental' 'ramp downs' STILL FAIL to recognize the 1964 court ordered MANDATED MAXIMUM 'ramping up' limitations, risking downstream life and safety, which BOR has REPEATEDLY VIOLATED by as much as 300% in initiating EXCEEDENCE of the 250 cfs per HOUR MAXIMUM rate of increase ordered at Iron Gate. Repeated communications with BOR have fallen on deaf ears. Those mandates SHOULD BE INCORPORATED HERE to insure coordinated compliance.
If ever there was clear confirmation of a predetermined outcome of regional oppression, this qualifies!
Given only 10 days (or
what is left once people
ACTUALLY become aware of
the release) to respond
to 179 pages and
hundreds more in the
Opinions, rather than
replying ANY DIRECT
NOTICE to submitters
‘incorrect’ provided BOR
posted email address,
the submitter has only
JUST NOW received
OUTSIDE contacts on the
LAST DAY of ALLOWED
is CONFIRMED by the
‘inconvenient’ fact that
IMPLEMENTATION of that
BI. Op. is ALREADY
beginning TODAY with the
FORCED now empirically
WASTING of water down
the Klamath, data which
the ‘revised’ Biological
consideration of by
until AFTER the Klamath
dams and SAME currently
data evidenced deep
So much for this paper trail farce of ‘inclusion’ in carrying out a currently empirical data contradicted predefined policy and special interest driven agenda of imposed regional attrition.
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
Page Updated: Tuesday April 14, 2020 03:26 PM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2019, All Rights Reserved