by David Smith Siskiyou Daily News December 10, 2009

Yreka, Calif. - Tuesday’s public forum with Senator Sam Aanestad turned from the budget reform process to talk of the four dams along the Klamath River that are slated for possible removal, pending a decision by the Secretary of the Interior in 2012.

The discussion began with talk of a resolution put forth by the Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee opposing dam removal and Aanestad’s refusal earlier in the year to back the resolution.

Responding to a question from the audience regarding the resolution, Aanestad stated that he felt it was “a bad resolution” for its lack of specificity in defining the dams the group was opposed to removing. He stated that he first heard the resolution over the phone on his way to the convention where it was being presented and he understood it to say that the group was opposed to all dam removal projects in the entire state.

“Can you say that there are no dams that should come out?” Aanestad asked, with some in the crowd saying they did not want any dams removed.

Aanestad continued by stating that he believes there are currently 100 dams in the state that should be removed, although he told the crowd that he is not in favor of removing the four dams on the Klamath. He went on to state that he would have listened to a resolution specific to the four dams, but said that he felt the original resolution was a “blanketed, uneducated resolution.”

Aanestad did say that he supported an amendment to the resolution made at the meeting in question regarding support for inclusion of hydroelectric generation in the state’s green energy policy.

The topic of the resolution appeared throughout the rest of the meeting, with disagreement over whether or not Aanestad should have seen the resolution beforehand and what his official position was on the issue.

Another issue brought up at the meeting was the upcoming vote on the “Water Bond” for the state, which has been presented as a solution to water problems facing the southern portion of California.

Aanestad told the crowd “there had to be a water deal,” but that he does not feel the current water bond is sufficient. While he repeated often that he was not telling the crowd whether or not to support the bond, he did say that he was going to vote no for a number of reasons, including the potential loss of water rights for north state landowners and what he feels is an inadequate amount to be allocated for creation of new water storage reservoirs.

According to Aanestad, however, if the bond passes, Siskiyou County will receive $20 million regardless of whether or not the Klamath dams are to be removed.

As the meeting moved forward, many in the audience spoke about things with which they disagree in both the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Aanestad eventually stated that he does back PacifiCorp’s decision to agree to put the dams up for removal, providing background and his rationale for doing so.

Aanestad said that beginning under former President George Bush and continuing under President Barack Obama, the cost for complying with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission guidelines for relicensing the dams would have potentially reached $300 million, without any assurance that the dams would be relicensed.

Ultimately, Aanestad said, he supports a private business’ decision to do what it will with its property, saying, “A private property owner has a duty to do what is right for shareholders.” He also stated that he believes that the two agreements are already a “done deal,” stating that the groups involved “are not required to get input from you.”

Other issues, which have been brought up in past forums on the issue of the dams, were brought up as well. Of those, Dr. Richard Gierak presented the idea that individuals may be able to bring an inverse condemnation suit against those seeking dam removal as a possible avenue for stopping the process. He also provided Aanestad with a number of informational packets he had prepared, each detailing a different aspect of his argument against dam removal, as well as the process by which the agreements were reached.

Aanestad closed the meeting by stating that he believes he has not communicated with Siskiyou County very well, stating that he has had various agribusiness groups in his office supporting dam removal, not knowing until the meeting that there were agribusiness interests opposed to removal.

Ultimately, according to Aanestad, he learned that there has been miscommunication on the issue between himself and his constituents, giving those left in attendance his personal phone number so that individuals can voice their concerns.