Presentation to the Modoc County Board of Supervisors:
By
Brandon Criss, Farmer/Rancher Macdoel CA.  Masters Degree in Public Administration from Norwich University, Chairman of the Siskiyou County Republican Party.

	Madam Chair, Modoc Supervisors, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about an issue which is critical to my Siskiyou County and to your Modoc County as well.
	A federal contract between the Government and those who defended this nation was broken.  A surprising and shocking event to them and their descendants and the over 20,000 people who paraded in the Klamath Bucket Brigade March plus many more around the nation.
	As M. David Stirling vice-president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, said in his article titled “Man-Made Drought” in the January/February 2009 California Political Review,  …”Homesteaders were lured by the federal government to enter into contracts under which they would pay for and the federal government would provide, irrigation water in perpetuity.  For almost a century irrigation water was delivered without fail, and the passing generations of farmers not only paid for the water they used annually, but also repaid the government for constructing, operating and maintaining the Klamath River Project’s water delivery infrastructure.”  For the sucker fish and coho salmon, 1400 farm families were denied water for their livestock and crops.  Stirling goes onto say that “The results included numerous bankruptcies, two known suicides by distraught farmers, and many dashed dreams.”
	So the farmers and ranchers, that is the Klamath Water Users Association entered their negations with the environmentalists and government bureaucracies that shut the water off in the first place, with their hats in their hands.
	Facing the real threats of future “Man-Made Droughts” they feared losing their farms, college tuitions for their children and the pride of continuing on what their parents or grandparents had started.
	I shall sum up the negotiations which had taken place.  The radical environmentalists and government bureaucracies who caused the entire problem, said ’give us your name’, the title of farmer and rancher.  As you all know farmers and ranchers are overall respected in this nation.  The image of John Wayne and the hardworking farmer feeding the family and this nation.  When politicians run for public office they don’t say “business man” but “farmer, rancher” because those titles are highly respected.
	So the Klamath Water User’s Association gave the radical environmentalists their name of “farmer/rancher.”  As long as those same groups which denied the water to them in the first place “promised” to consider not to sue to badly in the future and do it again to the farmers in the Basin.  They gave them their name of “farmer/rancher”.
	The Klamath Water User’s Association agreed to principles which have never been before in the history of farming anything farmers would agree to.  Those principles being the destruction of 4 hydropower dams which provide electricity to 70,000 homes, the principle of flooding down river communities with gushes of water, as stated by the Seiad Valley Fire Chief,  According to the February 19th, 2008 Siskiyou County Board of Supervisor Minutes, “Seiad Valley Fire Department Chief Tom Mopas voiced opposition to the Agreement, voicing concerns regarding the isolation of Seiad Valley during times of flooding”.  There are other down river homes and communities that will flood as well if the dams are removed.
	I understand that those which advocate dam removal say that the dams don’t hold back water, if that were the case Copco Lake would be a natural lake and not affected by dam removal, but it is a Dam made lake.  The residents of the Copco Lake area are greatly concerned with the loss of their lake.  The water table will lower resulting in drilling deeper wells, and loss of property values for retired and working Californians.  This is not a principle of farmers and ranchers, these are principles of the radical environmentalist movement.
	Now to an aspect of the KBRA which impacts the city of Yreka, (pop. 7,290) before the late 1960’s had an unstable supply of water.  The residents had to boil their water.  Lawns turned brown and they had water on alternate days.
	Direct quote from City of Yreka‘s Website:
“As the City grew, droughts and water shortages began to have greater impacts, and there were critical water shortages during the summers of 1944, 1955, 1957, 1959, and 1966. In 1966, the City commissioned a feasibility study to find alternative water sources. The report recommended that the City install a water conduit from Fall Creek, at a location about 23 miles northeast of the City. Construction of the 24-inch pipeline from Fall Creek, Fall Creek Pump Station, Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and Evergreen, City Ranch, and Klamath Pass Reservoirs, was completed in 1968, giving the City a safe reliable water supply. The initial WTP consisted of six 8-feet diameter by 22 feet long pressure filters.”
	Also According to Grace Bennett Siskiyou County Supervisor, She is a fifth generation Siskiyou County native. Her father was a logger, and her mother was raised on the Klamath River.  She served three terms on the Yreka City Council and was Mayor for two of the twelve years.
	“The city of Yreka has looked hard but still has never found a replacement for this water supply”
 	The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and the City of Yreka are highly concerned that the removal of the dams will damage, hinder and harm their water supply.  This is something radical environmentalists advocate, not farmers who live off the land.
(see attachment from the City of Yreka regarding its water supply).  Farmers don’t like it when a city steals our water, but farmers and ranchers have never advocated the ruination of a city’s water supply.
	Loss in Rural County Revenues
	Siskiyou County will lose $1,600,000 in county revenue if these dams are removed.  That is what the county is paid from the dams.  Not counting the reduction in property values, flood damage etc.  $1.6 million is a lot of money for our a rural county government.  There go a lot of good jobs providing for families during poor economic times that will be cut.
	The Klamath Water Users Association also gave the name of “farmer and rancher” to the idea of increasing electricity prices in Oregon to pay for dam removal.  To our failed governor Schwarzenegger’s efforts to pass a $250 Million bond to pay for dam removal.  The state of California owes money to Siskiyou County alone in PILT payments and I’m sure the state owes Modoc County as well.  But instead they use the farmers/ranchers name to advocate wasting this money on dam removal.
	So the Klamath Water User’s Association gave the name of farmer/rancher to this radical environmentalist movement, to its causes, efforts and radical agenda.  Brochures, newspapers, news broadcasters, politicians and radical environmentalists can use their name, the highly respected title of farmer and rancher to advocate ideals, principles and an agenda which are the opposite of what we farmers have actually stood for for generations.  Our name, that title is now been given as a blank check to the very groups which shut the water off in the first place.
	This makes it much harder to appeal to people to oppose the very flawed and legally challenged Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.  Which has sections that read:
1.  	Just read this section of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) Draft 11, (the current draft):  Section 18 “Drought Climate Change and Emergency,” Section 18.1 “Nothing here is intended to limit the applicability or effect of the Endangered Species Act or other Applicable Law.”
	Isn’t that clause the problem we had in the beginning?  They shut the water off in 2001 because of the Endangered Species Act.  If that sentence is argued by the environmentalists and advocates of the KBRA to not mean what it says, then why is that sentence even in the agreement? 
	Then read section 18.2.2 “The Parties intend that an Extreme Drought shall be declared only in exceptional conditions.  Water years 1992 and 1994 are the Extreme Drought years in the period 1961 to 2000.”
	What about 2001?  Isn’t that year the reason why this whole thing was negotiated, to prevent it from ever happening again?
2.    Then read:In the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement: 21.5 "By entering into this Agreement, NMFS and FWS ...expressly reserve the right to make determinations and take actions as necessary to meet the requirements of the ESA and implementing regulations." 
	In other words the Klamath Water Users Association agreed to an agreement which does not “guarantee” them water.  It is not a contract one should sign.
	So now when anyone says they oppose destruction of fully operating hydropower dams which provide electricity for 70,000 homes, or oppose higher electricity rates, or oppose the ruination of a city’s water supply, or oppose down river flooding, or oppose the draining on a lake people built homes around lowering the water table for their wells,  or oppose a rural county losing $1.6 million in funding, or oppose a burdensome $250 million bond wasting state money, the radical environmentalists turn it on us and say we are against the farmers and ranchers.
	Let me make this very clear, I am a farmer/rancher that is my sole source of income, I am not against the farmers, I am against the things the radical environmentalists tagged my profession’s good name too.
	Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Unanimously oppose the destruction of the dams.  Even Governor Schwarzenegger’s Secretary For Natural Resources, in a letter to the elected Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, feels that the County Board’s opposition to the deal which results in dam removal hurts the farmers.  Secretary Mike Chrisman makes clear when he asks in his letter, “Or has the county determined simply to frustrate the group’s efforts…” including other local governments and farmers.  
	Didn’t the state of California “frustrate” the process by determining that water guaranteed in “perpetuity”  to farmers, instead has to flow down the Klamath River.  When it is clear that the same water would be in the actual “Tulelake” if not for the efforts of the farmers.  That more water goes down the river because of the farmers.
	For a little history of the above, during 2001, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton said that water could be released to the farmers during 2001 after the National Academy of the Sciences said that the fish did not need the water that was supposed to be given to the farmers.
	The State of California officially blamed a fish die off to the release of that water.  In actuality more water goes down the Klamath River because the farmers pay for pumping back in than would go down in it naturally.
	So, the state of California’s effort to “frustrate” the process, forced a portion of the farmers to agree to dam removal.  Not because they seek it, but because it was the only hope the state gave them, if they were to ever receive water again.
	The elected Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors studied the issues indepthly.  They held community forums, special workshops, received public input and input from noted experts regarding the issues.
	But since the radical environmentalists were given the name of “farmers/ranchers” by the Klamath Water Users Association, now the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors are labeled as “anti agriculture.”
	Now the question must be answered by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors:  Do you want to give the name of your county, probably the most rural county in California, to the radical environmentalists for them to use.  All of you have been in politics you know if you endorse with your name, people will use it to advance their agenda.  That is what the radical environmentalists want to do, they want to use your rural county’s name to advocate a radical environmentalist movement.
	Do you want Modoc County to be known for frustrating Siskiyou County’s efforts to keep 1.6 million dollars in its much needed budget.  Do you, want Modoc County’s name to be used to advocate the destruction of 4 operating hydropower dams producing enough electricity for 70,000 homes, and as a side note, if this can be replaced, then why not just create that too and produce twice as much electricity and lower our already high bills, but to my argument do you want Modoc County’s name to be used to destroy a lake community, to advocate downriver flooding, to propose and defend threatening a city’s water supply, for issuing a $250 million statewide bond for a state already badly in debt, for a deal which does not “guarantee” water for farmers.
	Don’t sell out Modoc County’s name for false promises.
I’ll conclude with a press release issued by former Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa regarding the dams.  Agreeing to them exposes this debt strapped state to a lot of money we bluntly don’t have:

(As a note do not forget that Doug LaMalfa is a farmer, and he did speak before a Congressional Committee protesting the 2001 Klamath Basin Water Shutoff, he cannot be labeled as anti-agriculture as opposed to farmers)
FlashReport Weblog on California Politics
Us Good Ol' Republican Obstructionists
by Doug LaMalfa - North California (bio) (email)(print)
2-16-2009 9:42 am 
	….“Should Californians wait idly by and have hydro-power plants and their dams torn out up on the Klamath system [you know, because we have all this extra electricity available to us and cheap too] so that we can then as taxpayers get a bill for $250,000,000 to remove these facilities? Never mind that these have been in place for several decades but they are now causing a fish problem.
	And we can count on the price coming in on budget, right? Not, say, a billion when unaccounted silt removal costs or, they just plain figure out its hard to blow up and haul off a few dams out of the mountains. [Did anyone mention they need to sell bonds to pay for it? Hmm, that usually costs double to pay back] Untouchable.
	Speaking of bonds, we have many of them waiting in the wings that kick in soon. 

Now to conclude not on a negative but on a positive what do we ask of you:
We ask of your support against this radical environmentalist agenda.
1.  	.  The Klamath River’s water is naturally high in nutrients, phosphorous etc.  The water source is from an old volcano bed.  The state won’t re-license the dams because of the “impure” water.  Supervisors the water is already impure.
-We would appreciate the release of real science regarding water quality and the species and that the federal agencies adhere to the real science.
2.     The radical environmentalists who advocate this idea, won’t release a Center For Disease Control (CDC) report showing the health factors of the water at the dams until after an agreement is made to tear them down.  Our county Board of Supervisors and elected officials have lobbied for this release, but the bureaucrats won’t release at the federal or state level.
-We would appreciate the release of that report sooner rather than later.
3	In regards to the dams.  The radical environmentalist who advocate tearing them out, misuse the English language in their argument.  They state that PacifiCorp wants to tear them out because, it is more feasible to tear them down than go through the re-licensing process.  Well, to be honest and blunt they are right, and they created the mess.
	Congressman Wally Herger pointed out in an Op-ed the real scenario.  (see attached).  The state of California under the leadership of our failed governor Schwarzenegger won’t re-license the dams under the Federal Clean Water Act.  PacifiCorp could spend any amount of money it wants to, in order to build fish ladders or diversions, but California won’t re-license the dams.
	It is just common sense, it is the bureaucratic costs which hinder the dams, not the real free market factors.
-We would appreciate your support in obtaining a 401 permit from the California Water Board.
4.  Most importantly Supervisors, we already have a plan in place.  Farmers are delivered water through a system of canals they built.  
-It must be demanded that the federal government keep this promise.  
5.  Oppose the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.   Keep our “republican form of government”.  Stop it now, before this radical agenda spreads over the entire west