Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  

            Brigade

   Send Donations Here

     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.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Commentary: Hukill, Switzer: against dam removal, but for KBRA

BY AL SWITZER and CHERYL HUKILL

Guest writers

Klamath Falls Herald and News

May 27, 2010

 

   There seems to be some confusion on where we, Commissioners Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill, stand on dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

    From the very beginning of this process we have publicly stated that we are against dam removal and lobbied for fish ladders or trucking of fish instead. We are for jobs, jobs, jobs, and a strong economy. That message has never changed and will not change.

    State Rep. Bill Garrard has stated publicly that his position is against dam removal but for the KBRA, and this is the same position that we have taken and continue to take.

     We are not willing that outside entities make the decisions for this Basin when it comes to the water and agricultural issues that face us.

    We know that whether we signed the agreement or not, the dams are destined to come out. That was a private company making a private business decision. Government has no business interfering with private industry.

    But  the destiny of our farmers and ranchers is our priority, and we must be participants of the committees that will be formed as a result of the KBRA.

    The agricultural community brings in over $600 million, using a multiplier of 2. It has also created over 4,000 jobs.

    Businesses with livable wage jobs will quit looking at Klamath County as a viable place to relocate if we do not have a stable economy, of which agricultural is a huge part.

    Status quo is no longer an option. We must never forget what happened in 2001. Every business was affected by the government shutting our water off. At least with the KBRA, a committee of stakeholders will help set the course for our water issues.

    If the KBRA had been in effect in 2008, we would have had enough carryover to have 330,000 acre-feet of water instead of the 150,000 acre feet. Why? Because the biological opinion would have allowed the flow of water going down the Klamath River between October and February to be far less than it was this year.

    Again, we stand against dam removal, but stand for jobs and a strong economy.

The authors

    Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill are Klamath County commissioners.

Comment:
 
jazz4949 posted at 7:28 am on Thu, May 27 2010.
Sounds like a typical politician's answer. Play both sides of the fence and keep all options open. Guess what you can't oppose dam revoval and support the KBRA, that doesn't work. Although I understand the rationale and I support agriculture the agreement I am opposed to the KBRA due to dam removal. Of course I oppose it for other reasons like 90,000 acres, nearly $1 billion dollars in tax spending with no guarantee of a water supply. Besides the dams have as good of a chance of staying in as being pulled anyway.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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