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.

Klamath County Conservative Voter's PAC, KBRA Myth vs Fact
Economic Impacts of Dam Removal; I'm afraid you have been misled.
Stopping global warming

by Steve Rapalya, Chiloquin, 4/17/12

Recently a mailing by "PROSPER" has been circulating urging people to call Senator Wyden and Congressman Walden in support of the KBRA/KHSA.. This mailing has "facts" which, in our opinion, are wrong or at least misleading.

The whole dam removal proposal is based on several false premises:

1) Myth: The Mainstem Klamath River was "pristine" before the dams were built. Early journals written by explorers long before there was any influence by settlers describe a Klamath River in Fall too foul to drink or let their livestock drink. Salmon were described as dark, fungus covered and dying by 30 miles above the confluence of the Trinity River; which conversely was described as a "gem". ( George Gibbs journal of the Redick McKee expedition 1851)

2) Myth: A 500,000+ Chinook Salmon run can be restored to the Klamath River. There is no basis in fact for run numbers this size in the entire Klamath System let alone for the Mainstem Klamath. There are no accurate records of fish runs before 1913 .The most Chinook eggs taken at racks on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers before the dams were built was 15 million and the record cannery take was 72,357 Chinook (1930 Snyder) .This would indicate a total in river run of 158,000, using current counts from 1996, as the most comparable year and model because of its high instream catch, hatchery return and total count (175,773). According to California Fish and Game Department website, February,2011, enough females returned to the hatcheries on the two rivers to supply more than 45 million eggs.

3) Myth: The Klamath River can be restored to "natural" if the four dams slated for removal (Iron Gate, Copco 1 and 2 and J.C.Boyle) are removed. Link River Dam makes water available for stream flows in the Klamath River and for irrigation that was not available before it was built. Link River Dam as well as Keno Dam would have to be removed and the reef at the entrance to Link River raised 1.5 feet to "restore" the system. This would be disastrous to irrigators and the local economy.

Sections of Klamath River sometimes went dry in the fall some years as well as did Link River before construction of Link River Dam.

4) Myth: Dam removal will provide jobs. Some of these jobs are short duration dam removal jobs many of which will more than likely be filled by out of area contractors. Other "restoration" jobs will be seasonal, part time. All will be funded by Taxpayers and rate Payers. Other jobs created by the salmon numbers plucked from the sky are largely speculative.

5) Myth: This "agreement" will end litigation over Klamath River water, land and fish issues. This is such nonsense it does not merit a reply. There are very many non-signatories to these agreements who can be relied upon to sue. Siskiyou County is already threatening to sue.

6) Myth: Surety of water to irrigators. Under the KBRA , Pg.159,22.5. "Reservation": "By entering this agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are not prejudging the outcome of any process under the Endangered Species Act and NMFS and FWS implementing regulations." In plain English 7) Dam removal is cheaper than re -licensing the dams and was a business decision by Pacific Corp. This is somewhat true except it omits the fact water quality standards imposed on Pacific Corp. by the "Clean Water Act" are unachievable due to natural phosphorous loads from upper Klamath Lake and above. The "Endangered Species Act" also comes into play with expected "recoveries" deemed unlikely with dam removal and speculative at best.

With these laws in place as they stand, we believe the taxpayer should be responsible for paying for re-licensing as it was our representatives that created these road blocks many years after the dams were built .

The removal of the Klamath Dams destroys valuable infrastructure that supplies enough non-polluting power for 70,000 homes as well as "pulsing" capability to meet sudden power demand not provided by other means of power production. The hatchery at Iron Gate produces more fish than what would be available naturally.

We ask YOU to phone Senator Ron Wyden at 541-858-5122 and Congressman Greg Walden at 541-776-4646 and ask them to introduce legislation to exempt the Upper Klamath Basin and Main Stem Klamath River from the "Clean Water Act "for naturally occurring pollution . We suggest you also ask them to introduce legislation to reform the "Endangered Species Act" and say "no" to dam removal.

For more in depth rebuttal to the EIS/EIR for dam removal see Siskiyou County's comments at: Report on Klamath Dam removal studies from Siskiyou County to Secretary Salazar 1/31/12. http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/settlement/documents/Salazar_CommentstoOverviewReport01_31_12FINAL%20LTHere is a draft rebuttal to the "PROSPER" letter for discussion, comment, additions, subtractions; etc. R5B1%5DSiskiyou.pdf

Economic Impacts of Dam Removal

I'm afraid you have been misled.

Some questions and comments::

How do irrigated agriculture and the refuges get more water from dam removal when their water is diverted far above the dams slated for removal? As far as "guaranteed "water in the KBRA read Pg.159,22.5. "Reservation": "By entering this agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are not prejudging the outcome of any process under the Endangered Species Act and NMFS and FWS implementing regulations." In plain English the ESA trumps all.

As for More refuge visitors, as the attorneys would say, "facts not in evidence".

Almost all of the economic estimates are based on estimates of increased fish numbers from estimated historical fish numbers that are speculation and have no bases in fact.

According to Division Of Fish And Game of California, Fish Bulletin #34,Salmon of the Klamath River of California by John O. Snyder, Stanford University, the most Chinook Salmon eggs taken pre-dam was 15 million for the Klamath system (including the Trinity River). He also stated there were no accurate records before 1913.The cannery records from the in-stream net fishery; which was totally in the tide water below the confluence of the Trinity, do not show any records that could with any certainty show run levels of the purported half a million fish. The Trinity river historically is the main producer of Chinook Salmon for the Klamath System.

California Fish and Game's web site as of February 11, 2011 showed enough retuning Chinook females for 45 million + eggs.

As far as the economic benefits of dam removal these benefits are based on the speculative increase in salmon numbers. People outside the 12 county survey area probably know almost nothing of the issue. Their information would rely on these speculative fish numbers. Further I do not know how an economic benefit can be derived from from what people say the would pay or might pay. In other words, in my opinion, the economic benefits are "smoke and mirrors".

If we add the estimated benefits from the "pie in the sky" increase in commercial fishing, in river sport fishing, ocean sport fishing, refuge recreation and 12 county area of California and Oregon we get a net "benefit" of $507.6 billion. The net loss from removal of power generation and related jobs is $1.3201 BILLION. (These numbers were taken from the draft EIR.)

Further, any accounts from the journals of early explorers who were here before "White Man" had altered the environment, are not considered. These explorers were only describing what they found and had no axe to grind. They described a river far different than the dam removal proponents envision.

I think the Tax Payer is going to be on the hook for a billion dollars plus to destroy infrastructure of known value for a grand "pipe dream".

Steve Rapalyea

Stopping global warming

President Obama's war on green house gasses no doubt entered his decisions to stop US energy production that is not "green". (How is that Solyndra working for ya?) That is one reason no doubt why He Who Bows to Saudi Kings stopped the Keystone Pipeline and previously had the EPA make CO2 a pollutant (Congress be damned!).

This of course, supposedly all in and effort to stop global warming, now called "climate change". But , if you follow some of the alleged effects of "climate change", one of worst is the receding polar ice pack and the thawing of the Arctic perma frost.

Some research of the thawing perma frost shows a conservative estimate it releases 100 times more green house gases in the form of methane and CO2 than Man. In other words it releases as much in 1 year as man has in 100 Yrs; as much as man has produced since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In summary, it should be obvious that destroying our economy to fight "climate change" would be as effective as passing gas in a hurricane.



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: Wednesday April 18, 2012 01:57 AM  Pacific

             Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2012, All Rights Reserved