http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2009/06/03/viewpoints/letters/doc4a2618722d762597269878.txt
Why did they put the Klamath Basin through all of this?
Just read this section of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement: 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 off the water in 2001 because of the Endangered Species Act. If that sentence is argued by environmentalists and advocates of the KBRA not to mean what it says, why is it 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 why this whole thing was negotiated to
prevent it from ever happening again?
Why did they take it away?
Now environmentalists and advocates for the
restoration agreement say that those days of
uncertainty of 2001 will end if everyone just
agrees to the restoration agreement and then
everything goes back to normal. Farmers young
and old then can now know for certainty that
they will have enough water throughout the
growing season to grow their crops.
If that is the case, if the environmentalists,
tribes and government agencies that shut off the
water in 2001 will now let Klamath Basin farmers
and ranchers have water they already denied to
them; why did they take it away in the first
place?
How are farmers going to get irrigation water if
water is supposedly needed for endangered
species such as the suckerfish or salmon? Is
there now plenty of water for man and fish?
If so, why did they put Basin farmers and
ranchers through all of this mess? Why didn’t
they just build water storage capacity in the
first place and solve the problem then? And if
additional water storage solves the problem,
then just get it done.
It is also argued by environmentalists and
advocates for the restoration agreement that
there will be better electricity rates if the
agreement goes through. Why did the
environmentalists have to shut off the water in
2001 in order to now say they will help in
electricity costs? Couldn’t they have just
helped out with this problem without shutting
the water off?
Why according to the environmentalists,
government agencies and advocates of this
agreement do we have to demolish Klamath River
hydropower dams in Siskiyou County that provide
clean electricity for 70,000 homes? If they say
this electricity can be replaced with wind and
solar power, why not just build those now and
provide electricity for 140,000 homes and reduce
our already high power costs?
These dams also provide flood protection to
downriver communities. The Seiad Valley fire
chief voiced concerns at a Siskiyou County Board
of Supervisors meeting last year that his
community will flood without the dams. Why is it
a condition of the environmentalists and
agencies who shut off the water in 2001 that
Seiad Valley, Happy Camp and downriver
communities must flood periodically to guarantee
Basin farmers water and fair electricity rates?
A business decision?
Environmentalists and advocates for the
restoration agreement say that it is a business
decision by PacifiCorp to remove them. If it is
a “business decision” by a private company, why
did the Klamath Basin have to go dry in 2001 for
the Basin to agree to dam removal? Why is dam
removal even in the agreement, if it is a
private company’s decision?
Then also, how does “Helping the Klamath Tribes
acquire the Mazama Tree Farm” (Herald and News,
April 29, 2009, p. A7) improve water flows and
water storage for suckerfish, salmon and farms?
The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement does not
secure water for the farmers. They already have
agreements that are being violated. The benefit
for the entire region is to keep the dams,
increase storage capacity, build the fish ladder
diversions, and honor the existing water right
commitments to the farmers and ranchers.
The author
Brandon Criss is a farmer-rancher in the
Butte Valley Area. He is chairman of the
Siskiyou County Republican Party, which opposes
removal of the Klamath River dams.