Response to Klamath Report parts 1-3 on 4/28, 4/29, 4/30/09 respectively

Pursuant to our phone conversation prior to the airings, I am responding as you suggested to the reports.  While I first thought my original unreturned call to you offering information having been apparently lost was unfortunate for our position to be heard, after watching the reports’ parsing of statements and editing of order for a determined effect I decided it would have resulted in no less for us.  Obviously the opinion and intent of either the station or yourself is evident and cast, and appears intended to influence public at a critical time (SB 76) with no time for effective response to inaccuracies or outright fabrications for what our Klamath experience and history knows will be a devastating failed policy imposed travesty not only to the people and the region, but to the Klamath environment itself.

4/28/09 

The statement that removal of dams will restore the Klamath is unsupported fallacy contradicted by history and recent scientific studies (see below).

All farmers are inferred benefiting from the KBRA when you know that less than 10% are represented under the KBRA, with many of the remaining suffering substantial losses, and unofficial polling estimating 90% of the region are in opposition to dams removals.

It is inferred by context that the 2001 ‘massive fish kill’ was caused by low water.  A statement disproven by the National Academy of Sciences and being on the river below the dams at the time was known to be higher than historic norms.

4/29/09

The majority of reasons why people want the dams to remain have either intentionally or ineptly been excluded:

River conditions are better since the dams than before.

Late summer flows are higher and there is drastically reduced riparian damage from repetitive winter flooding subsequent to the dams.

Improved in-river algae conditions.

No known significant salmon runs above Spencer Creek (upper Copco) pre dams.

Coho was unknown in upper mid stem Klamath prior to repeated imported plantings after improved water conditions from Iron Gate Dam in the 60’s.

Virtually all cited major salmon runs occurred long after the dams were in place.

So called salmon ‘reductions’ have primarily been over last 15 years and dams have been in place for nearly one hundred, with local human impacts drastically less than prior.

A major part of salmon ‘shortage’ is due to recent elimination of DNA identical originated from natural stocks hatchery hatched smolt numbers being included in counts, intended removal of which hatchery will drastically exacerbate any cyclical occurring problems.
Most of the causes of any current reductions have now been proven as not significantly dams related (2008 record Columbia sockeye study and 2008 Columbia/Frasier tagged salmon study).

Many much more effective and vastly lower cost alternatives that build on current assets are available, mitigating and fulfilling all parties’ needs without major sacrifice, which are being ignored until this massively destructive, financially motivated asset reallocation takes place.

The majority of all of those costs of that reallocation under the AIP and KBRA will be borne by the ratepayers and taxpayers, primarily ratepayers, which sb76 guarantees by ‘capping’ the smallest portion and ‘legislating’ the majority of costs by bypassing the PUC process for ‘related’ increases.

That all of the billion already spent over the last 20 years experimenting with their ‘best science’ theories have failed, resulting in over 1200 homes and over 100,000 acres of agricultural lands lost, with no statistical increase in fish, and degraded water quality (marshes – Rykbost studies, and off project reduced agricultural water overall loss results).

Once sb76 and the AIP are signed, the regional damage, costs, hierarchal and asset reallocation is set in stone, whether the added environmental tragedy of dams removal occurs or not, with no assurance benefit or decision maker’s consequence for failed decisions.

The only actual ‘opposition’ to dams removal dwelled upon was characterized as being only for lakeside ‘property value’ reductions, cutting out most other concerns and minimizing theirs.

‘Protecting” the water in the Klamath is not the job of Riverkeepers, Water Watch, etc.  Their job is to raise funding to support their groups’ justification, by any means necessary or possible.  It is the local opposition to dams removal that has the experience, history, and knowledge of the Klamath who are sacrificing their own time, money, energy, and resources against the political and monetary odds in order to prevent a financially motivated environmental and social disaster being imposed under the guise of good cause.  Most if not all of your featured groups have been in this region for relatively few years, Klamath Riverkeepers about 3, and have no extensive history, background, or experience involving the Klamath.  Contrary to your statement, those groups are not ‘grassroots’ organizations, but are large out of area originated organizations heavily funded by corporations, wealthy, government, and often self serving benefiting

‘foundations’ (RIverkeepers by the Robert F Kennedy Legal Foundation).

One sentence is given to the ‘green energy’ provided by the dams, which you immediately follow by a much longer sarcastic and unfounded statement by the Karuk Tribal paid spokesperson.

This ‘over allocated’ system has been virtually the same for nearly 100 years, during many of the cited record salmon runs.

Your ‘a number of farmers against removal’ has been estimated at over 90%.

The majority of your ‘opposition’ segment was still focused on environmental groups pushing dams removal, with no mention of the above reasons against removal other than ‘property values’ ‘not supported by all lake landowners’ (how many did you meet and what percentage did they comprise?), with the exception of a one sentence reference included of ‘possible sediment release’ concerns.

4/30/09

The AIP is not a part of the KBRA, it is included as supporting its terms, for obvious reasons.  The KBRA was made an integral part of the AIP by decision of undisclosed parties (Interior, Governors, and Pacific Power) under secret meeting with no representation from other interests, including Pacific Power ratepayers.

Contrary to Art Sasse, Pacific Power spokesperson, Pacific Power is not protecting customers, their responsibility is to its shareholders and all costs are being deferred to the unrepresented ratepayers and taxpayers, mostly ratepayers, under the AIP process and implemented by passage of Oregon’s sb76.

‘4 million for studies’ from ‘stimulus’ funds is only a part.  Former Interior Secretary Kempthorne in a letter to the Governors promised 1 billion in ‘interim’ to dam removal funding to support removal ‘study’ and ‘restoration’, and estimated an additional 1 billion in costs subsequent to removals  for KBRA support.  With the only original requirement of the KBRA ‘chosen few’ participation being the agreement to dams removal, with the KBRA being the only non party group given inclusion within the AIP, with the former Secretary of Interior having stated the KBRA is an ‘integral part’ of the AIP, with the current Secretary stating full support and agreement with prior provisions, with the Secretary being given full discretion under the AIP to select any ‘third party’ entities to administer funded ‘ongoing interim research and restoration’ determining dams removal, and with the Secretary having full decision for determining any dams removal, what ‘group’ do you think will be chosen to  ‘administer’ the interim 1 billion ‘research and restoration’ and what decision do you think that ‘research’ will support?

Any semblance of ‘balance’ in future reporting you may have inferred to others in correspondence is irrelevant, as you know either by plan or coincidence, since the ‘support’ of an ‘agreement’ was obviously timed to promote passage of sb76, and any subsequent ‘report’ would be ineffective.

Sincerely,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: 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

 

Source:  http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/