Anti-dam removal group will not appeal
Rejected initiative ruled by clerk as unconstitutional
A group that opposes dam removal on
the Klamath River will not appeal a ruling that its proposed ballot
initiative was unconstitutional.
The group, Voters Opposed to Dam
Removal, proposed an initiative that would have asked voters to make it
illegal for Klamath County to financially support
dam removal. Group members initially
said they would appeal the Klamath County clerk’s ruling that the
initiative did not qualify for the ballot.
Frank Goodson, one of the group’s
chief petitioners, said the group decided to not proceed with its appeal
because the Klamath County Board of Commissioners decided Tuesday to add
an advisory election to the November ballot that will ask voters if the
county should discontinue participation in the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement.
The KBRA is tied to the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, which includes the removal of four
hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.
The advisory election will poll
public opinion, and will not be legally binding.
The group submitted a letter to the
Board of Commissioners Monday, requesting that the November ballot
include the following advisory question: “Should the Klamath River dams
be removed as requested in the KBRA (Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement)?”
The Board of Commissioners declined
the group’s request.
Goodson said group members might
resubmit their original ballot initiative for the March election if they
are not satisfied with the way the advisory question is worded on the
November ballot.
“We’re just putting it off until we
see what happens,” he said.
A special March
election would cost the county about $50,000, said Klamath County Clerk
Linda Smith.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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