|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Garrard defends stance on ‘private’ document
Klamath Representative
provides copy of ‘Water for Life’ document
State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, said in an online newsletter sent to constituents Friday that the Herald and News inaccurately reported he would not release a document concerning the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
The state lawmaker was the target of criticism from county and community leaders after he criticized aspects of the restoration agreement, which seeks to resolve water disputes among fishermen, farmers, tribes and environmentalists.
The Herald and News reported May 20 that “Garrard said he took that stance after reading a document provided by the advocacy group Water for Life. He declined to provide the document, calling it private.”
Garrard said in his newsletter that, in fact, the document was provided to state Rep. Bob Jensen, R-Pendleton, and that he told the Herald and News he would have to check with Jensen before releasing it.
Garrard never requested a correction to the article. He has since provided a copy of the document to the Herald and News.
“ There is no secret document,” the newsletter reads.
County commissioners and a proponent of the restoration agreement criticized Garrard over testimony he provided during a hearing about Senate Bill 76. The bill would help implement the removal of four PacifiCorp-owned dams on the Klamath River, a key component of the restoration agreement.
Commissioner Al Switzer and Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association, said Garrard’s view that the restoration agreement would override the ongoing Klamath Basin water adjudication process was incorrect.
Commissioner Cheryl Hukill criticized Garrard for speaking on why the commissioners haven’t yet chosen to support or oppose the restoration agreement when he’d never contacted her about it.
Garrard said his testimony against the dam removal bill was based upon his reading of the Water for Life document. His newsletter said the last two sentences of one section were of particular concern, which states that portions of the restoration agreement may not hold up in court when the adjudication process is taken into account.
“I just felt the paper didn’t give me time to get the document approved for release,” Garrard said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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