|
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 |
Siskiyou
supervisors oppose water proposal
|
|
|
H&N
photo by Lee Juillerat in
February during a pubic public hearing on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. |
By LEE JUILLERAT
H&N Regional Editor
April 2,
2008
YREKA — Siskiyou County supervisors voted Tuesday to oppose the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath River dam removal.
Supervisor Jim Cook proposed the resolutions. Both passed unanimously.
“We reaffirmed we don’t believe dam removal is in the best interest
of the county,” Cook said after the meeting. “In the separate
resolution, we said we’re opposed to the current settlement
agreement.”
The restoration agreement allocates water in the Klamath River Basin
among irrigators, tribes, conservationists and fisheries. It also
advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams owned by PacifiCorp, a
Portland-based power company. Three of those dams are in Siskiyou
County.
Siskiyou
County’s opposition was not expected to kill the agreement, but
stakeholders said Tuesday they weren’t sure how the supervisors’
votes would impact the settlement process.
Cook believes that provisions of the agreement should be implemented.
“There are a number of things that are positive, things that can be
done without dam removal,” he said, citing promises by tribes not to
pursue lawsuits, the opening of discussion between different interest
groups, proposals to improve salmon populations and guarantees of water
supplies for Upper Basin irrigators.
Cook’s district includes the Tulelake Basin, where Tulelake Irrigation
District members support the settlement, and other areas where
irrigation districts, whitewater boaters and Copco Lake property owners
oppose the agreement.
Two other supervisors, Bill Overman and Michael Kobseff, prepared
separate, long resolutions listing concerns. Cook said the county
counsel was directed to prepare a findings document that will declare
what sections of the 256-page agreement the full board agrees and
disagrees with.
Cook said the decisions restated the board’s long-standing opposition.
“For the last 2 1/2 years we’ve said we’re against dam removal,”
he said, noting the board wants to remain active with the restoration
process.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
Source: http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2008/04/02/featured_story/