By TY BEAVER
H&N Staff Writer
August 9, 2008
Klamath County
Commissioner Bill Brown said he represented his
viewpoints, the county and a consensus of county
residents opposed to dam removal on a recent
trip to Washington, D.C.
According to a summary
Brown provided of the trip, Brown and two
Siskiyou County supervisors went to the Capitol
armed with suggested alternatives to dam
removal, and Brown told lawmakers that Klamath
County did not want salmon introduced to the
upper reaches of the Basin because it could
negatively impact agriculture.
The three also
delivered requests for support of federal timber
payments to 16 Republican senators who voted
against the payments in the past.
During the trip, Brown
met with aides for U.S. Reps. Wally Herger,
R-Calf., John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Mike
Thompson, D-Calif., and Michael Bogert, chief
counsel to the Secretary of the Interior. The
aids confirmed Brown and the Siskiyou county
officials met with them, but refused to disclose
what what was discussed in the meetings.
John Snider, an aid to U.S.
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., participated by
teleconference in a meeting with Brown and the
Siskiyou County Supervisors Jim Cook and Michael
Kobseff. He said Brown told them he was not
representing Klamath County.
Decision
postponed
The Klamath County
Board of Commissioners — Brown, John Elliott and
Al Switzer — postponed taking a stand on dam
removal or the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement, a document written by agricultural,
environmental, tribal, fishing and government
interests that allocates water within the
watershed. It also provides funds to help
purchase private forestland for the Klamath
Tribes and establish a stable power rate for
irrigators.
Siskiyou County
supervisors voted against the agreement, citing
their disagreement with dam removal. The
agreement advocates dam removal and removal
would be necessary to implement the plan.
PacifiCorp is in discussions with state and
federal officials.
Advisory Council
Brown said he represented
the opinion of the Klamath County Natural
Resource Advisory Council, the Klamath Basin Alliance
and irrigators off the Klamath Reclamation
Project
and in the Langell and Poe valleys during his
trip.
The Klamath Basin Alliance is opposed
to transferring public land to the K l a m at h
T r i b e s . T he resource advisory council
said it wouldn’t support the restoration
agreement as written, but it postponed a final
decision, citing concerns with water, a land
transfer to the Klamath Tribes and impacts of
dam removal.
At least one Klamath Basin irrigator
did not agree with the reason for Brown’s trip
to Washington, D.C. Steve Kandra, who farms on
the Klamath Project, said earlier that the trip
did not represent his interests or reflect well
on Klamath County.
Brown spent about $2,000 of his
county-appropriated travel funds on the trip. He
said it was justified and that he did not need a
motion of the Klamath County Board of
Commissioners to represent the interests of
county residents.
“I have a duty as an elected official
to do what is best for our county,” he said.
Opposed to dam removal
Brown said his conversations and
meetings with people indicate that at least 60
percent of county residents are opposed to dam
removal and other aspects of the restoration
agreement.
He said his statements about salmon
are supported by the Klamath Water Users
Association. The group sent a letter to the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife asking it
to postpone plans to bring salmon to the Upper
Basin until the effects of the fish on the
region’s agriculture were further studied.
Commissioner Switzer
said Brown is in charge of his travel expenses
and spends them at his discretion. He said it
was his understanding that Brown expressed his
own viewpoints during the trip.