a) supporting additional water storage (Long Lake, Boundary
Dam Proposals and/or other natural alternatives) in order to
deliver water to agriculture and down-stream when deemed
necessary.
b) supporting amendment of the Endangered Species Act which
has paralyzed the entire Klamath Basin through poor
decisions based on unproven science and history,
c) re-establishing the hatcheries to maximum instead of
minimum capacities for a variety of fish species,
d) establishing an aggressive plan to control the number of
predators which we know are a large part of the problem
related to fish numbers up the Klamath River, and
e) additional controls being established for the large
commercial fishing vessels that lay off our coast and
contribute greatly to sustainable fish runs.
These are but a few of the many parts of a total solution
that I expected to see in the KBRA proposal along with other
solutions that have not been thought of or addressed.
Because of the confidentiality agreement
approved when the KBRA work began, stakeholders could not
openly discuss the proposed KBRA. Once I had the January
2008 KBRA Draft Proposal in my hands and the confidentiality
agreement was fulfilled I expressed, after careful thought
and investigation, my disappointment in the KBRA proposal
publicly. While there were a couple parts of the proposal
that I thought could be beneficial, those were widely
over-ridden by the four dams to be removed at taxpayer and
rate-payer expense, purchase of a 90,000 acre tribal forest
by taxpayers, idling of 18,000 acres in upper Klamath
donating nearly 30,000 more acre feet of water to a
political cause that has already cost our county dearly.
Along with this was the fact that I witnessed very few real
solutions identified above.
Following is a summary of major concerns that
formed my decision, as a Klamath County Commissioner and now
a private citizen, to not support the KBRA proposal as
presented:
1. The KBRA does not have the support of the
Klamath County Natural Resources Advisory Council,
agriculture related organizations and a large majority of
our citizens as proved by recent surveys and discussions
with citizens. Citizens do not have a clue as how this will
effect adjudication and cost in taxes, electrical rates,
etc.
2. Taking out dams will not provide a salmon
run under past or current conditions due to the historical
fact that the salmon were dead or dying at the location of
the Irongate Dam which is why it was placed at that location
along with geological reasons. For the fish to climb
another 2000 plus feet in elevation and swim approximately
another 80 miles when they are dead or dying at the Irongate
location creates a reality of why there is no evidence of
salmon runs this far up the river. That is also why the
engineers and scientists placed the fish hatchery at the
Irongate Dam also. In other words, science and history teach
us that we will have salmon runs in Klamath County “When
Salmon Fly”. The cost of dam removal, estimated between
$400 million and four billion, seems estimator’s could come
a bit closer, far exceeds the cost of developing additional
water storage and implementing other real solutions.
“Follow the Money” related to this KBRA proposal.
3. Over 100,000 acres of productive
farm/ranch lands have been idled in Klamath County not
counting conservation easements purchased by agencies with
taxpayer funds. Using a conservative average of $300 net
income per acre of productive ground, this totals a net loss
to our local economy of $30 million dollars per year. Why
would anyone need or want to negatively affect our gross
income from agriculture further by taking another 18,000
acres out of production? This does not include losses to
farm implement dealerships, veterinary services, ag
suppliers, restaurants and all types of other retail shops.
4. The KBRA is an agreement with no legal basis. Klamath
County Legal Councils (former and present), wrote opinions
that this is only an agreement and is not legally binding.
So, my question is why are we relying on an agreement that
can and probably will change given new leadership locally,
statewide and nationally? Seems like a perfect storm for
future generations.
5. Purchasing tribal land under this
agreement was one of those “Oh, By the Way” additions asked
for by the Klamath Tribes a week or two before the draft was
presented in January 2008. In my opinion, it has no place
in this agreement. My stated opinion of purchasing tribal
land is that the tribes have every right to purchase land
with their own funds but the taxpayers have no obligation to
assist or be responsible for said purchases.
6. I personally observed a great deal of
deceptions, manipulations and outright misinformation that
occurred during the development of this KBRA proposal. Ugly
politics, attempts to discredit those that oppose the KBRA
proposal, illegal meetings and non-objective/balanced
reporting by the Herald and News, especially after the
Herald and News came out very early in favor of the KBRA
proposal, was and is the norm. This type of behavior and
game-playing has no place in such an important issue that
will affect all Klamath Basin communities and citizens now
and in the future. We all deserve better in order to fight
future battles united.
In conclusion, I urge the current Klamath
County Commissioners to vote NO on the KBRA as presented.
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. The solution is to not give in to small special
interests rather work towards real solutions that are
recognized as being supported by the majority with integrity
in the process.
Sincerely,
Bill Brown