By SARA HOTTMAN

H&N Staff Reporter

July 8, 2010

     Steve Kandra, a Klamath Reclamation Project irrigator who grows cereal grains and alfalfa, said he’s most interested to see whether the comments actually pertain to the issue at hand: dam removal and the effects thereof.

   “It’s a scoping hearing … but people are going to be using it as a forum for other things,” Kandra said. “It will be interesting to see how germane the comments are, what people know, what people really don’t know, how knowledgeable they are, what they’re mad about.” 

   Kandra supports the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, but said because the agreement is not the topic of the meeting, if he contributes comments they’ll be about dam decommissioning, fish passages, site remediation and restoration, and downstream impacts — the focus of the environmental impact report.

   While state and federal officials want public input about the environmental impact of removing dams, they have also described the KBRA and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement as inseparable, and expect comments on both.

   Klamath Basin farmer Karl Scronce said he won’t pretend to be an expert on dams, “but my testimony is going to add to how agreements will help fix the whole river system and its issues.”

   He said his comments would focus more on section 16 of the KBRA, which outlines an off-Project water program intended to resolve water rights disputes, increase stream flow to Upper Klamath Lake and improve fish habitats.

   “I don’t think anyone is really for or against dam removal, we just support the agreements,” Scronce said. “Our portion of the agreement is more about off-Project farmers and ranchers getting water and affordable power.

   “They’re intertwined, but the dam agreement is not the main focus.”