|
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.
Lawmaker
comes under fire
Klamath County
commissioners and a proponent of the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement criticized a state
lawmaker from Klamath Falls for providing false
and unverified information about the agreement
at a legislative committee meeting.
State Rep. Bill
Garrard, R -Klamath Falls, testified two weeks
ago on legislation dealing with the removal of
four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River — a
key aspect of the restoration agreement which
seeks to settle water disputes between
fishermen, farmers, tribes and
conservationists.
In his testimony to
the House Committee on Environment and Water,
Garrard said moving Senate Bill 76 to the House
floor would be a decision on the merits of the
restoration agreement itself.
“ By voting for this bill, you will be
expressing your support for a final resolution
agreement that really is not yet in final form
and which we have not been privy to,” Garrard
said. “You will also
be making a decision on whether or how the
Klamath Basin water rights adjudication process
should proceed, because the KBRA trumps water
adjudication.”
Senate Bill 76 would allow
Portland-based PacifiCorp to charge its Oregon
customers an additional, on average,
$1.50 per month to help pay for removal of the
dams, further moving along the restoration
agreement.
County Commissioner Al Switzer and
Greg Addington, executive director of the
Klamath Water Users Association, said the state
lawmaker’s statements about the restoration
agreement overriding adjudication were
incorrect.
Addington said he was particularly
concerned with Garrard’s use of the word
‘trump,’ as it implies an unfair advantage for a
single group.
“We are not gaining any sort of unfair
advantage,” Addington said. “We simply have
chosen
to settle one of our contests.”
County commissioners
Garrard also told the committee that
Klamath County commissioners have not taken a
stand on the restoration agreement because of
questions
about dam removal, including liability and
cost.
Commissioner Cheryl Hukill said she
never spoke with Garrard about the agreement or
the county’s stance. Klamath County is the only
stakeholder in the agreement that has not taken
a stance on the restoration agreement.
Commissioners have said they will not do so
until there is a final version.
“I do not appreciate someone speaking
for me without asking my opinion,” she said.
Garrard clarified his statement on the
restoration agreement and adjudication, saying
that anyone who signs the restoration agreement
will lose their water rights in adjudication.
Those who don’t sign on can still pursue action
in the adjudication.
“I really was partially right,” he
said.
Garrard said he took that stance after
reading a document provided by advocacy group
Water for Life. He declined to provide the
document, calling it private.
Garrard also said he understood
Hukill’s position, but said he knows there are
still a lot of questions about the restoration
agreement and that Switzer and Commissioner John
Elliott have voiced concerns to him.
Garrard, along with state Sen. Doug
Whitsett,
R-Klamath Falls, and state Rep. George Gilman,
R-Medford, have criticized dam removal and
commissioned a poll that indicated the majority
of Klamath County residents oppose it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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