Letters, Opinions, Speeches of The People 2010
|Keep the dams; don’t over-regulate food, (and who caused the deficit?) H&N letter by Jerry Pappe 12/21/10||Copco Lake residents don’t want Klamath dams gone, H&N, posted to KBC 12/16/10. "Clarence Waltner, who has lived on the bank of Copco Lake for 10 years, was outraged that the dams — which are privately owned by PacifiCorp — would be removed and costs would be passed on to ratepayers’ electricity bills. 'That’s like sending in a bulldozer, bulldozing our homes, then sending us a bill for the bulldozer,' he said."|
|Meeting at Copco Lake, ‘It’s the only thing I have to leave my kids," H&N, posted to KBC 12/16/10. Bob Davis, Copco Lake resident, speaks about ripping out Copco Dam on the Klamath Rive||"Science and the Secretarial Determination" - Klamath River Dam removal, by Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong, posted to KBC 12/16/10|
|Attempt to confuse (Klamath) voters was deliberate, H&N letter by Herald Puff, posted to KBC 12/3/10||
How will the power from the Klamath dams be replaced if they are removed?Siskiyou Daily News 12/3/10
|KBC - November 2010 emails between KBRA facilitator Ed Sheets and KBC editor, regarding October Klamath KBRA meeting, upcoming December 15 meeting, KBRA Drought Plan, public comments and transcripts. At the Oct 17 KBRA Coordinating Council public meeting, approximately 30 people from the public attended, most all opposed the KBRA in public comments. We are informed by Sheets he did not and will not record the public comments. Where did the new-concept of "transparency" and "public process" go? Did you really believe, after years of closed door meetings and resistance to a public vote, that they would ever include your input? And did you realize your 'leaders' voted on the KBRA and there still is no Drought Plan?|
Siskiyou Daily News is going pro-environmental,
by Dr Richard Gierak 11/21/10. "...Art
Sasse of Pacific Corps believes that the
(Klamath) dams were not constructed for flood
control...The following article was published prior
to the construction of Iron Gate and it is clear
there were four primary reasons for building Iron
1. flood control giving residents downriver up to a 90 minute warning of an inundating flood
2. power production as it is clearly the most environmentally friendly technique
3. sustain fisheries by having reservoir water to maintain adequate flows in dry years
4. reduce danger to human life below the Copco dams..."
|We have buried our dead once already, Shasta Tribal leader Gary Lake, Siskiyou Daily News 11/30/10. "NOWHERE in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) are the Shasta People recognized. The Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement (KHSA) exposes the Shasta People's burial grounds, Spiritual sites, ceremonial grounds and villages which are currently protected by reservoirs behind the dams that are to be taken out."||What will come next in the fight over dams? H&N letter by James Finses, Copco Lake 11/20/10|
|Fish over farmlands? It shouldn’t happen, H&N by Kevin Fure, posted to KBC 11/21/10||Siskiyou’s vote against Klamath dam removal resounding, H&N letter to editor by Louise Gliotto, Yreka 11/17/10|
|Dam removal, tree farm biggest part of dispute, H&N by Jerry Pappe, posted to KBC 11/10/10||Worded right, results on 18-80 would change, by Howard Paine for H&N 11/9/10. "Proponents argue dam removal will allow salmon to migrate to Upper Klamath Lake. It’s doubtful they were ever there. If they were, why did the Klamath Tribes eat suckers?"|
The KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration
changes the purpose of the
Klamath Reclamation Project.
Continue reading KBRA document regarding
the new water right given to Fish and
Oregon and California Wildlife Refuges: appropriation for ag or fish and wildlife early 1900's. Page 1, & Page 2
From Klamath Drainage District appeal before Dept. of Interior 1953 relating to refuges, grain leases and homesteads, Reclamation Act, purpose of the Klamath Reclamation Project, and attempts by the federal government to change that purpose.
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6
Siskiyou County election results:
Measure G, Klamath Hydro Dam Removal
3 Klamath Dams to be destroyed are in Siskiyou County
79.19% Voted "NO" dam removal 11,079 votes
20.81% voted "YES" dam removal, 2912 votes
Klamath County election results:
Dennis Linthicum R (opposes KBRA) 13,900 votes 72.08%
Kirk Oakes D (supports KBRA) . . . 5,255 votes 27.25%
the public wanted the measure to read, do you
support or oppose the KBRA and dam removal. The
commissioners worded the measure, should Klamath
County leave the KBRA negotiation table. It was
worded where yes meant no, and no meant yes.
Yes 49.29% (they oppose the KBRA)
No 50.71% (they want to remain at the KBRA table whether they oppose the KBRA or not. Like Siskiyou is at the table but they oppose the KBRA)
perhaps hundreds, of Klamath Basin citizens have
written letters concerning the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement, the KBRA, which was
written by leaders behind closed doors and to this
day, the PEOPLE have had no vote. Zero transparency.
The "leaders" boycotted their
public input meeting that 300 attended. Many
groups are denied a seat at the table. In fact the
KBRA "drought plan" will not be public until after
this Nov 2 election.
* Siskiyou County Measure G, the PEOPLE advocate voting NO on the KBRA and dam removal. It reads: Should the Klamath River Dams, Irongate, Copco I and Copco II and associated Hydroelectric Facility be removed? Yes___ or NO___
* Klamath County Measure 18-80 was requested by the people opposing the KBRA and dam removal. However the DA worded it where Yes means No. In Klamath County, YES means you oppose the KBRA and dam removal.
|Six reasons to support Measure G, by Petey Brucker, Siskiyou Daily News, posted to KBC 10/30/10, followed by Brucker's speech at a Chadwick session in '05 detailing his agenda, "Farmers and ranchers dewatered wetlands, which reduced habitat. Farm chemicals ruin water quality and cows damage riverbanks and water quality. Logging was purely greed for money, ruining public trust. Loggers believe that "the only good tree is a stump...he supports regulations like the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Clean Water Act, to slow society; "regulations curb greed and destruction..." he, through Klamath Forest Alliance, helps map corridors and core areas. These are the areas targeted by the ESA (which lacks peer review), NEPA, and Clean Water Act, to eliminate people from these areas. He said that the process took a long time through the Klamath Task Force, however listing coho salmon as endangered helped the process." Brucker is at the KBRA negotiation table.|
|KBRA proponents’ spin doesn’t hold up to the facts, H&N 10/28/10, letter by Edward Bartell, Nevada (formerly from above the Klamath Project). " in Eureka, where taking water from Klamath farmers is popular, the Times Standard quotes a major architect of the KBRA as stating “there are no guarantees of water for farms in the agreement, only a cap on how much can be diverted,” a decidedly different story than the “water guarantees” Klamath County residents hear about."||
Save the Klamath Dams to Save the Pelicans! by Mr Ed Weber, Hornbrook 10/27/10
(Klamath) Dam Removal, The Swindle of the Century, Siskiyou County Water Users Association Vice President 10/26/10. Facts and Lies
|PowerPoint: Klamath Settlement Agreement, a Mid-Klamath Perspective on Klamath Dam Removal by Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong, District 5, 10/26/10|
|No on G (Klamath Dam removal): Remember the spotted owl, by Dr Richard Gierak, Siskiyou Daily 10/22/10||Sound familiar? by Frank Tallerico Jr., retired Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools, Siskiyou Daily News Letter October 26, 2010 (regarding retired FWS Phil Dietrich on Klamath Dam removal)|
KBRA proponents’ spin doesn’t hold up to the facts, H&N 10/28/10, letter by Edward Bartell, Nevada (formerly from above the Klamath Project). " in Eureka, where taking water from Klamath farmers is popular, the Times Standard quotes a major architect of the KBRA as stating “there are no guarantees of water for farms in the agreement, only a cap on how much can be diverted,” a decidedly different story than the “water guarantees” Klamath County residents hear about."
Outside funds trying to influence (Klamath)
elections H&N letter by Tom Mallams
the Sustainable Northwest 2008, 990 federal tax
return it shows that in that 12-month period, the
organization spent $447,158 on Klamath Basin issues.
$63,835 went to a
local upper Basin irrigator (Becky Hyde) for
Save the Klamath Dams to Save the Pelicans! by Mr Ed Weber, Hornbrook 10/27/10
|* Klamath - Getting It All Back, August 2004, Ron DeShon: "My god, how could we have ever allowed the “Klamath Project” and the consequent farming to have happened! Tell me. Are we not responsible?...Turn off the water, blow up the dams, let it be as it once was." (KBC Note: Ron created KBC Website in 2001 and spent an entire year, often night and day, managing it)|
PowerPoint: Klamath Settlement Agreement, a Mid-Klamath Perspective on Klamath Dam Removal by Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong, District 5, 10/26/10
|(Klamath) Dam Removal, The Swindle of the Century, Siskiyou County Water Users Association Vice President 10/26/10. Facts and Lies||No on G (Klamath Dam removal): Remember the spotted owl, by Dr Richard Gierak, Siskiyou Daily 10/22/10|
|Sound familiar? by Frank Tallerico Jr., retired Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools, Siskiyou Daily News Letter October 26, 2010 (regarding retired FWS Phil Dietrich on Klamath Dam removal)||
Vote Dennis Linthicum, Klamath County Commissioner
Included is info on the KBRA: "Vote YES on 18-80 help defeat the KBRA and save our dams"
Dennis Linthicum, Klamath County Commissioner
Candidate, response to Herald and News
"distorted 'factual' account," 10/23/10
Except this one swims, by Leo Kivela, Siskiyou Daily 10/23/10
|Stakeholder process a try at world control? by Rudy Hiley, Tulelake, posted to KBC 10/21/10. "When you realize that the KBRA is a sustainability agreement sealed by agenda-warped science and driven by false fears of human-caused climate change, you will have good reason for concern."|
2004 letter said state had claim to (Klamath) dam water, H&N by Brandon Criss, Butte Valley 10/21/10, a response to Klamath County Commissioner Elliot's denial of Shasta Valley ag water right which the KBRA proponents negotiated away. "Elliot should be more worried about section 19.4.5 of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement which gives the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council the power to renegotiate the content of the KBRA if “Substantial effects of climate change are determined by the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council to be manifest or reasonably likely to occur;” (KBRA pages 133-134). FOLLOWED BY: accusations by Elliot that Criss lied about having water right.
Get out: Vote YES on 18-80, and against dam
removal, Frank Goodson, H&N 10/20/10. "
Save our dams.
Stop the tax money purchase of 90,000 acres. Slow
down the Endangered Species Act. Vote yes on Measure
Political advertising ‘despicable?’ No, it’s just the facts, by Tom Mallams, posted to KBC 10/21/10. "On Feb. 12, 2009, the Natural Resource Advisory Council voted to not support the KBRA as written. The commissioners choose to ignore the advice of their own advisory council."
|Job promises don’t justify dam removal, H&N, posted to KBC 10/20/10, by Rex Cozzalio, Hornbrook rancher||Why destroy a great green energy source? Herald and News letter by Henry Edwards|
|Dennis Linthicum recommends: Vote Yes on 18-80. YES Klamath County Commissioners should discontinue participation in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, 10/17/10||
Vote for Republicans and against the KBRA, letter by Wilma Heiney, Herald and News, posted to KBC 10/14/10
|Measure doesn’t ask the right questions, H&N letter by John Turner, Klamath Falls 10/14/10||The best take on the KBRA is Linthicum’s, H&N letter by Sandra Devries 10/14/10|
|KBRA has nothing to do with creating new jobs, H&N 10/14/10 by Guy Turnage||Taxpayers on the hook for dam removal, KBRA, by George Warner, Klamath Falls 10/13/10|
|Why is the (Klamath) lake level tied to so many issues? Keith Cook, H&N 10/12/10 "What has the issue of forest to the tribes to do with dividing the available water? The ownership of that part of the forest will not contribute water to the lake. What has the relicensing of dams on the Klamath River have to do with the dividable water in Upper Klamath Lake? Their dam pools will never contribute to the water level in Klamath Lake."|
Cards already shuffled secretly for (Klamath) agreement, H&N by Brandon Criss, 10/10/10. "It’s naive to replace judges with the plaintiff’s suing farmers and expect a different result." "Craig Tucker, the Karuk Tribe’s negotiator for the KBRA, defended the KBRA, saying that there are no guarantees of water for farms in the agreement, only a cap on how much can be diverted." "Sadly, after dam removal, Shasta Valley farmers lose 60,000 acre-feet of senior water rights storage they have sought to develop."
followed byValid Alternatives to KBRA, Settlement instead of Agreement,
by William Kennedy 7/27/10, Klamath Falls, OR, Pioneer Press. "Do you approve of a process that manipulates perception as truth and results in giving someone’s property away without their engagement? Do you support a process of limited negotiations that strays far away from anything that looks like democracy and excludes true stakeholders in order to reach a predetermined outcome?"
EarthTalk: What are the pros and cons of dams? TheE/Environmental Magazine, posted to KBC 9/15/10. "Green groups including American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are pushing the federal government to mandate the removal of four dams along the Snake River in Washington State...The scheduled removal of two century-old dams on the Elwha River in Washington State's Olympic National Park beginning in 2011 may well serve as test cases for larger dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest and beyond." KBC NOTE: See our KBRA Page; the community comments on our leaders' plans to tear out 4 hydropower dams serving 70,000 households annually.
|Why vote 'no' on Klamath dam removal, Capital Press by Dr. Richard Gierak, posted to KBC 10/9/10|
|Commissioners not telling truth about dams, 10/7/2010, H&N letter by Leo Bergeron, Montague rancher, past California Grange Master, "Who’s doing the lying? Your Klamath County commissioners. They have repetitively told you that “these dams do not provide irrigation water to farms and ranches.” (Cheryl Hukill commentary, Sept. 19, Herald and News)...Why haven’t they told you that Shasta Valley farmers have a senior water right of 60,000 acre feet of water storage behind those dams? Those dams also provide some flood protection...It’s pitiful that they’re pitting neighbor vs. neighbor when we should all be united."|
|Vote no on G, by Brandon Criss, Butte Valley Rancher, Siskiyou Daily News Letter to the Editor October 6, 2010. "The “council’s” majority is a great concern, because of its unlimited decision making authority. Should “substantial climate change be determined by the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council to be manifest or reasonably likely to occur” (pg. 134 KBRA), then the whole KBRA can be “negotiated” by that same “council.”||
Vote ‘no’ on Klamath dams removal, by Tom Wetter, Siskiyou Daily News 9/29/10
|Biological opinion key to enough water, by Warren Haught H&N 9/4/10. "Many of our water users consider this to be a preview of the Klamath Basin Reclamation Agreement; insufficient surface water, inadequate funding for land idling, and not enough well water to make up the difference."||
won’t mean greater local control,
Dennis Linthicum, posted to KBC 9/27/10
Removing dams and burning wood stupid, H&N by Henry Edwards 9/3/10
|Cumulative Social and Economic Impacts of Environmental Regulations, by Siskiyou County Commissioner Marcia Armstrong 8/28/10||Civil Disobedience, The Quiet before the Storm (Klamath River Basin) by Mark Baird, Vice Chairman POW, Protect Our Water in Scotts Valley, Siskiyou County 8/9/10. "Do we really want the RCD or the CDFG or special interest groups who form the KBRA/KHSA to rob us of our Liberty or our Property."|
about the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA)
and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement
(KHSA, by the Klamath Tribes,
Dec '09 issue.
"...Because of the
significantly reduced and capped irrigation water
diversions in the KBRA, there will be more water
left in the lakes and rivers for fish, wildlife and
plants. And the Klamath Tribes will not give up a
single Treaty Right!...Don Gentry, Klamath Tribes.
"RUMOR: The KBRA weakens the Endangered Species Act.TRUTH: The KBRA specifically retains our ability to protect fish using the Endangered Species Act (ESA)..."
" *Counties Program – provides some funding for offsetting property tax impacts of water use retirement on agricultural lands, and for some economic development planning."
"Over $235 million for a massive effort by the Klamath Tribes and many others to fix our lakes and rivers above Iron Gate Dam."
" *Klamath Irrigation Project deliveries will be reduced and capped in the drier years, in exchange for a pledge from the Tribes not to further reduce Project diversions. In the driest years, a drought plan will be in place to maintain river flows and lake levels to support fish.
*$47 million to substantially increase flows in the Sprague, Wood and Williamson by retiring enough water uses to increase inflow to Upper Klamath Lake by 30,000 acre feet per year."
" *The TFPA is a new federal law under which Tribes can influence the management of adjacent federal lands. A key component of the TFPA is Tribal ownership of property that is adjacent to Forest Service lands. Over 50 miles of the Mazama boundary touch the Fremont-Winema National Forest."
|Despite claims, dams provide water storage, flood control, H&N guest writers Leo Bergeron and Brandon Criss. Bergeron is a Montague, Calif., rancher, and a past California State Grange Master. Criss is a Butte Valley rancher and a board member of the Klamath Conservative Voters’ PAC. "||Letter supporting KBRA to Committee on Natural Resources by Klamath Water Users Assoc, PCFFA, Trout Unlimited, California Trout, Yurok Tribe, American Rivers, UKWU, Klamath Tribe, posted to KBC 7/24/10|
|Steve Kandra, Klamath Basin irrigator, writes to Chairman of House Subcommittee on Power and Water regarding Congressman McClintok inviting Tom Mallams, off-Project irrigator and KBRA opponent, to the hearing, posted to KBC 7/24/10||
In Siskiyou, we have no more to give, Terry
Brown, Siskiyou Daily News , posted to KBC 8/8/10
Show us the science, Siskiyou Daily 7/13/10
|Solution for Klamath: Editorial: Fish passage project brings jobs, hopes for habitat, Roseberg News Review 7/13/10||Water opinions sought, officials seeking public input about dam removal, KBRA, H&N 7/6/10|
|KBRA lacks necessary rigor, legal precision, Dennis Linthicum, H&N guest writer 7/6/10. (Linthicum won Oregon's primaries as the new Klamath County Commissioner replacing incumbent John Elliott, KBRA supporter.|
Response to California Department of Fish and Game’s
regional official’s letter in Redding Record
by Frank Tallerico, retired Siskiyou County
Superintendent of Schools, posted to KBC 7/6/10
Help us fix the Klamath Resource Crisis, Redding Searchlight 7/4/10 followed by comments.
|Supporting KBRA means supporting dam removal, H&N letter to editor by Jerry Jones, Chiloquin 7/1/10||Klamath should help create a coalition against KBRA, by Tom Mallams, H&N 6/20/10|
Klamath farmers face 'worrisome' water situation, CFBF, posted to KBC 6/4/10. Addington, “It (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/KBRA) is still very controversial, but at the end of the day we’ve got to pursue strategies and policies that give us some degree of stability here, where we have none now.” KBC NOTE: Regarding the KBRA, Siskiyou County, home of 3 Klamath River Dams, opposes the KBRA. Klamath County poll showed only 5% favored the closed-door KBRA negotiations and 11% favored dam removal. The KBRA promises a LIMIT, not a promise, on water available for agriculture, and there is no drought plan.
County letter to Salazar alleges failure to meet dam
Siskiyou Daily , posted to KBC 6/14/10
Newspaper tried to steal the election, but failed,
H&N guest writer Frank Goodson, Klamath Falls, posted
to KBC 5/31/10
|Backers of Klamath dam-removal plan fail at polls, Capital Press, posted to KBC 5/23/10. "Opposition to dam removal helped the political newcomer win nearly 63 percent of the vote in the May 18 Klamath County Republican primary to unseat long-time commissioner John Elliott. ...Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, who also opposes the agreement and dam removal, scored a convincing win May 18, securing 64 percent of the vote in the Republican primary for House District 56...'The people have spoken,' said Tom Mallams, a Klamath County rancher and vocal opponent of dam removal."|
|People have forgotten why we need to have dams, H&N, posted to KBC 5/22/10||Klamath Ag PAC ad misleads about irrigation, Leo Bergeron, Yreka, and Anthony Intiso, Montague 5/20/10|
|Hastings: Dam Removal Extremists Falsely Attack Latest BiOp, 5/21/10|
In Tuesday's primaries, THE PEOPLE voted for those
reps opposing the KBRA:
(Klamath County Commissioner John) Elliott loses county seat, H&N 5/20/10. "Linthicum garnered nearly 63 percent of the registered Republican vote, while Elliott received about 37 percent...
Garrard wins GOP primary, H&N 5/20/10. "he also felt voter feelings on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement played a part in the vote. Garrard opposes the landmark document, while Scronce supports it. 'I would assume that the people of the Klamath Basin have expressed their opinion,' Garrard said...(Garrard) had 65 percent of the vote."
Klamath Dam Removal parts 1 and 2, by Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor Ridin' Point, May 7 and 14.
|KBRA should have been put on the ballot, H&N letter by Larry Mitchell, Dairy, posted to KBC 5/13/10|
|Racism not part of it; it’s the bad policies, H&N by Shirley Kerns 5/11/10. "...yes, we do have a plan. Leave the dams in place to produce needed electricity and install fish ladders for fish passage. Fish ladders are feasible and they do work. Provide deep-water storage, but unlike the KBRA allow this water to be used for both agriculture and fish. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, follow the state’s water rights adjudication process giving us a lawful order for water priority without circumventing Oregon Water Law."|
|If it’s not the KBRA, what is the plan? H&N by Steve Kandra 5/11/10||
County's problems call for a change, Ruth Ann Patton, H&N 5/11/10
Elliott, Scronce seek government intrusion, H&N letter by Lillie Goodson, posted to KBC 5/11/10
Pro-agriculture groups are not in support of KBRA, H&N letter by Brandon Criss, farmer/rancher and chair of Siskiyou Republican Central Committee 5/7/10
|KBRA (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement) likely to create more 2001-type crises. H&N letter to editor by Edward Bartell 5/4/10. "Having participated in Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement negotiations, I am dismayed by KBRA supporters..."||
Bigger story to tell about Klamath levees, by Karl
Scronce, Guest Comment for Capital Press 11/9/07
|Local interests will suffer, Siskiyou Daily letter by Dr Gierak 4/30/10||Letter from PacifiCorp, to Calif. Congressman Wally Herger regarding Klamath dam removal, posted to KBC 4/24/10|
|Letter to Sec. of Interior Ken Salazar from Tom Rickard, Montegue, regarding KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement., posted to KBC 4/24/10||Dormant Commerce Clause is supreme as it relates to the KBRA, KHSA, TMDL, and state regulatory actions, 4/20/10 by Dr. Gierak.|
|County opts not to join dam removal agreements, triplicate 4/16/10||Watergate or Damgate, by Stan Meager, posted to KBC 4/16/10. "I think bribery or black mail is a great deal maker.'|
|(Possible Keno dam removal) Corvallis firm’s next assignment: Planning Klamath dam removals, Corvallis Gazette Times, posted to KBC 4/11/10. "River Design Group will analyze the potential impacts of removing the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, Iron Gate and Keno dams on the Klamath River" Followed by comments on Keno Dam removal|
|Agreement doesn't produce additional water for Basin, H&N by Shirley Kerns, posted to KBC 4/11/10, followed by comments||
Be careful about cost of replacing hydro power,
H&N letter to editor by Dennis Linthicum, Beatty.
Linthicum is candidate running against for John
for Klamath County Commissioner, 4/2/10
Elect Dennis Linthicum WEBSITE
What will Mr. Thompson do for the Klamath River and his constituents? by Felice Pace, Times Standard 4/2/10. "We have had years of negotiations from which the public -- and significant stakeholders -- have been excluded. Will the public also be excluded from deliberations on what is in Klamath legislation?"
Agreement another step that doesn’t make sense, H&N letter by Harvey Houston 4/1/10
No KBRA, KHSA for county, Siskiyou Daily News,
* 4/1/10 The home of 3 Klamath River dams to be destroyed in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/KBRA, Siskiyou County voted 4 to 1 to oppose dam removal and oppose the KBRA. Unlike Klamath County Commissioners, the Siskiyou Supervisors voted to uphold the will of their constituents.
Letter from Klamath County Central Committee to
Congressman Tom McClintock, posted to KBC
Fellow Klamath Chamber Members, by Brandan Topham, Flying T Ranch, regarding Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, followed by RESPONSE by Chamber director Charles Masseyposted to KBC 3/21/10
|To Capital Press regarding Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement editorial of 1/22/10, by Erika Bentsen. "Although my land is going to be crucified if this agreement is approved, I was not given a voice at any juncture in the structuring of this horrible proposal. The "stakeholders" as the authors of this agreement call themselves, have baldly ignored the voices of senior water right holders, power rate payers, tax payers, and curious citizens with simple questions..."|
|Removing dams is just wrong-headed, by Vaudine Cullins 3/15/10, H&N||DO NOT REMOVE THE DAMS! (Letter to Oregon Governor Kulongowski) by Shirley Fisher, Klamath River native, posted to KBC 3/10/10|
|Let people vote on taking Klamath River dams out, H&N letter by Bonnie Parsons, posted to KBC 3/6/10.||Oppose dam destruction, ‘dumbing down’ of USA, H&N letter by Homer Meeds, posted to KBC 3/1/10|
|Each dam should be evaluated independently, by John Turner, letter to H&N 2/24/10||Owners of property and water rights beware! Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement could happen to you, by David & Marganne Oxley, Klamath Falls 2/20/10|
|Klamath Basin Science Conference, by Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor 2/18/10. "It appeared to be the consensus of scientists at the Conference that the timeline to complete all the proposed scientific studies for the cost/ benefit analysis on dam removal prior to the decision by the Secretary of the Interior was quite unrealistic."||
Hastings: Hard Questions Need to be Answered on $1 Billion
Klamath Plan; Objects to American Taxpayers Subsidizing
Private Dam Removal, 2/18/10
Karuk voting on Klamath Dam removal, by Karuk tribal member James Waddell 2/7/10
|Agreement assures future of basin, Capital Press letter by Greg Addington, Klamath Water Users Assoc director 2/12/10. (KBC NOTE: hundreds of local people came to public listening session boycotted by Addington and KWUA, and Klamath County Commissioners. No one supported the 'agreement.')||
Government, tribes to get their wishes from Klamath agreement,
by Bruce Wirth, H&N 2/14/10
Klamath should be adjudicated, Capital Press letter by Tom Mallams, Beatty 2/12/10
Klamath farmers take heed of Metropolitan, Capital Press,
posted to KBC 2/12/10
Removal of Klamath dams would be a swindle, H&N 2/12/10 by Danny Hull
Klamath Impacts - Letter to Klamath County Commissioners opposing KBRA by Rex Cozzalio 2/8/10, Hornbrook, on the Klamath River
|Karuk People of the Klamath History… and nothing to do with Karuk Political Activists in law suits or with crazy Karuk Dam Removal Efforts! letter by James Waddell, Karuk Tribal Member and U.S. Veteran, posted to KBC 2/8/10. Note from Waddell: "The Karuk People never had a chance to vote on the Klamath dam removal, or the law suit against the US Forest Service, or the law suit against the CA Fish & Game, or the law suit agains the Water Quality Control Board, or the law suit against the gold miners."|
|Letter (Blackmail by PacifiCorp?) from KOPWU/Klamath Off Project Water Users to KBRA negotiation facilitator Ed Sheets 2/5/10, (Ed Sheets told KOPWU they are booted from the negotiation table, unless...)|
Klamath Dam Removal by Rich Bodnar on KBC discussion forum 1/30/10. "Look at the "environmentalist" facts: land grabs, billions in demolitions costs, secret meetings, water rationing, loss of clean power, decimated property values, energy and water rate increases, disappearance of lakes used for recreation, loss of tax revenue, and decimated communities..."
|We the following citizens’ current & past elected public servants of Klamath County are AGAINST removal of the Klamath River Dams and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the KBRA, as written., posted 1/29/10|
|Letter by former Klamath County Commissioner Bill Brown to Klamath County Commissioners regarding the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement / KBRA 1/27/10. "While the current KBRA blew an excellent opportunity to bring forward real solutions, the reality is that this KBRA has caused division among our citizens for the benefit of the few."|
|Klamath agreement fails to meet needs of American people, Capital Press by Bill Kennedy, Klamath Basin rancher, posted to KBC 1/29/10||Who really has jurisdiction over Oregon’s water? H&N 1/27/10|
|(Klamath) Deal ignores impact on Siskiyou County, posted 1/24/10, Capital Press by Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong June 2009. Rerun requested by Klamath Project citizen. "Let's call the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement what it is - many wolves and a sheep sitting down to decide what's for dinner."||No cheap power rate for Project irrigators in their leaders' Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/KBRA, 1/23/2010 by a KBC editor. "...Dept of the Interior representative said there was "a snowball's chance" of that low of rate, and said it would be closer to 5 to 7 cents. That would be added to an estimated 4.5 cent delivery charge. So in essence, the rate could be 9.5 - 11.5 or more, possibly more than current tariff rate."|
|Irrigators review water agreement final draft, FOLLOWED BY Irrigators raise questions about agreement FOLLOWED BY Herald and News Readers' comments, 1/23/10. H&N reader comment: "If there is no guaranteed water delivery to all farms in all years; if the farmers are still constrained by all of the ESA demands (which will soon include salmon in the basin if the KBRA goes through); if they are not guaranteed that litigation will be held to a minimum; if they are not guaranteed freedom from the CWA and EPA/ODEQ and CA Water Quality Control Board enforcement of the TMDL's, and they are not guaranteed anything more than the going rate for electricity, why would they want to implement the KBRA ?"|
Settlement Agreements, column by Siskiyou County Supervisor
Marcia Armstrong, posted to KBC 1/22/10
Agreement would put federal rights over state’s, H&N letter by James Ottoman 1/21/10
|Siskiyou County has 60 days from the date that the agreement is signed by PacifiCorp, the states and federal government (and becomes effective) to hold public hearings and deliberate before making its final decision as to whether or not it will sign the documents. Marcia Armstrong, Chair, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors|
|AUDIO: KMED Bill Meyers interview with Tom Mallams, Klamath Off Project Water Users President, about Rogue Valley and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/KBRA. Letter by Klamath Water Users Association/KWUA director Greg Addington is discussed. Mallams explained off-Project support of Project irrigators during the 2001 water shut-off. Bill Meyers said he felt KWUA throws Off-Project irrigators "under the bus" in Addington's email.|
|(Klamath) agreement would harm agriculture, basin, H&N by guest writer Brandon Criss, Butte Valley, posted to KBC 1/18/10. "The KBRA makes abundantly clear in “Appendix B-3 Proposed Oregon Legislation for 2011 Legislation Session” page B-4 that states that “The use of lottery bond proceeds is authorized based on the following findings: That water right retirements and reduced water delivery in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon through the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will negatively affect land values and the agricultural land base in Oregon’s Klamath River Basin and that the use of the lottery bond proceeds will further economic development by mitigating the negative impact of such water right retirements and reduced water delivery on the economy of the region.”|
|We need more dams for future populations, H&N letter to editor by Harvey Houston, Klamath Falls 1/16/10||Update from Tom Mallams, President Off Project Water Users Association, regarding the final KBRA document. Mallams is at the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement table on power issues, 1/7/09|
|Quote from Lee Juillerat, regional writer Herald and News 1/3/10, For political Leaders: "Agree to disagree, but genuinely listen and seriously consider arguments from those you disagree with." KBC NOTE: Now that's a foreign concept to our local commissioners and "leaders." 300 people attended a public input meeting on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, and Klamath Commissioners, Klamath Water Users Association, Family Farm Alliance, PacifiCorp, all boycotted the meeting, where concerns and solutions were presented by those who will be effected by the KBRA.|
Page Updated: Sunday August 31, 2014 04:33 PM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved