CLARIFYING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT/RESTORATION AGREEMENT

Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor

February 23, 2008

(I would like specific and comprehensive answers to the following questions, sent to Frank DeMarco for definitive answers)  

1.      Are there two agreements (a) the “restoration” agreement and (b) the dam removal agreement with PacifiCorp?

2.      Are we actively participating in group (b)? If not, why not?

3.      Will the dam removal agreement have mitigations for: (a) restoration of the lake bottoms and securitized funding for those purposes; (b) assurances that some entity will be liable for damages to considerable County infrastructure downstream of the dams, private property, business damages and the securitization of funding for that liability; (c) repair and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure used in the decommissioning of dams; (d) mitigation for the  clean energy source lost – such as investment and location of alternative energy generation facilities in Siskiyou County; and (e) any potential damages to Yreka City water use rights, sources and transportation infrastructure – with securitized funding? The Settlement/Restoration Agreement has nothing addressing these concerns.

4.      Under the Settlement/Restoration Agreement, Siskiyou County is to get a promise to ask the State Legislature for $20 million. Is this money to go into the County’s General Fund to pay for County Services ? If not, then what is it to be used for and how and to whom is it intended to be allocated? Is it true that recipients of these funds will have to waive their right to sue for any damages from dam removal?

5.      If the release of sediment harms the downstream fishery, will farmers in the Scott and Shasta be held harmless for lower fish counts?

6.      Will the hatchery still be operational if the dams are removed or if fishways are installed? Who will pay for operations? How much of fish populations are due to the hatchery production? Will farmers in the Scott and Shasta be held harmless for decreases in population due to loss of the hatchery?

7.      Who will own the property between the current lake front houses and the new river channel? Will it be available for adjacent landowner’s to purchase so that they have riverfront property? Is it in the flood plain or will it be available for development by PacifiCorp?

8.      What are the estimates for what it will cost to retrofit the dams with required fishways? Will that be passed on to the ratepayers? Which ratepayers? Will the Klamath Project and Off Project users be exempt from costs on their rates? Are we considered off-Project ratepayers and will our area be made exempt from rate increases like the rest? If not, why not? How might this effect residential, business and agricultural rates in the mid-Klamath River. What parties to the Settlement Agreement would not bear these costs as they are out of the service area or sheltered by the Agreement?

9.      What are the estimates for what it will cost to decommission dams? Will that include removal of sediment so that it doesn’t move downstream?

10. The tribe and environmentalists claim that decommissioning will bring jobs to Siskiyou County which will offset impacts. Do we have a qualified contractor that exists in Siskiyou County who could do the work? What kinds of jobs could typically be done by local contractors or would they be subcontracted to any lowest bidder?

11. Can the landowners around the lakes get just compensation under the fifth Amendment for loss of property value?

12. If the agreement is signed, the Tribes agree to waive their right to litigate the US Government (Klamath Project) for additional flows. Is this waiver from suit also good for the Scott and the Shasta Adjudications? For the Forest Service’s Rights on the Scott River ?

13.  When did the new Settlement/Restoration agreement group start meeting? When did Siskiyou County become a part of that group? How did they become a part of it?

14. Is the “Klamath Summit” the same thing as the Settlement/Restoration Agreement? How do they fit together?

15. What permits and licenses are needed for the dam to continue operation? Who has that authority? Are we participating in these other permitting processes? What is their timeline and how can we/the public participate? Are there any requirements in the law for these permitting or relicensing bodies to “coordinate” with the County?

16. What, if anything, will we be giving up concerning our groundwater jurisdiction in this agreement?

17. If the agreement is signed, can the Shasta and Scott River Valleys (RCDs) continue to apply for and receive grants for projects under government programs such as the  “Klamath River Restoration Program” (See current Neg Dec) or will all future government funding be funneled through the new Settlement process?         

18. What will that new funding for projects process entail? Who will have the authority to make decisions or impose requirements on new restoration projects under the new process? How much will the agencies be entitled to take as a cut for administration etc?

19. How will the governance structure be configured to create geographic balance in allocating grant monies and in creating policy recommendations? What will the governance structure specifically have jurisdiction or power over? What specific functions will it perform To what agency will it make recommendations? Will the Counties have any control or first approval over what projects, policies or whatever affecting lands, water and resources within their geographical jurisdiction will come to the “governance body” for consideration? Will County police powers and jurisdiction over land and groundwater use be respected? Will the Counties have any control/first approval over the recognition of  NGOs and other entities making application to the governance structure?

20. Who will pay for trips to participate in the governance body? Will these be open, noticed FACA meetings? Where will the meetings be held? Is it appropriate to have NGOs sitting at the table at the same level and with the same standing as County legislators, government agencies and tribal governments? 

21. Many of the studies being used to assess impacts were done or commissioned by environmental groups. It is my personal experience that these studies are not impartial, peer reviewed or public and have a track record of skewing conclusions to support the environmental agenda. Will a comprehensive, impartial and public studies be funded and performed on the impacts of dam removal?

22. Will there be any fair and impartial comparative analysis of the potential loss of other values to Siskiyou County such as potential loss of a California designated Wild Trout Area from Copco to the border, Wild and Scenic Rivers, a Class IV-V summer whitewater rafting run, a treasured competitive bass fishery, a valued perch fishery, valued lake ecosystems and recreational opportunities?

23. Will the Settlement Agreement negotiations be reopened and an effort made to seat representatives of the Copco lake area and downriver communities with the most at stake of loss in this agreement? Will there be negotiation and governance seats for the Shasta and Scott Landowners affected by the new Fish Council an Governance Structure. Will efforts be made to create a fair paying field for these Mid-Klamath interests? 

24. Can we consider an alternative to deepen the dams – creating greater storage for flood protection, colder water for management?

25.  Are Scott and Shasta Valleys included in the Drought Plan? If so, how?

26. What will happen if we don’t sign the agreement? Will the $20 million remain? Could it go forward without us? Would our County be exempt from the Fish Council and Governance Structure? Would we still be eligible for restoration grants?

27.Could the dams come out without an agreement in place? Could we end up with no mitigations for impacts if we do not have an agreement in place?