September 14, 2006
As a researcher on the twin topics of property rights and
resource providers, my work is often focused on farmers, irrigators, dams,
etc.
As might be imagined, the Klamath Basin, Klamath Project
and those living in, and impacted by, water, are often part of my work.
PacifiCorp is charged with a delicate balancing act:
PacifiCorp must continue to be profitable, appeasing Mid-American
shareholders while protecting the interests of ratepayers.
Just as PacifiCorp/Mid-American must generate a return
on its investments, so, too, must PacifiCorp's Klamath customers be able
to reap the harvest of their investments.
In the Klamath Basin and Klamath Project, irrigators
utilize water in ways marvelous to behold.
From the use and reuse of Project water, which is
"recycled" more than a half-dozen times before going downstream,
to the amazing bounty that the Klamath Project offers the region, America
and the world in the form of a top-quality diversity of products grown --
this PacifiCorp service area delivers more than the checks it receives
from ratepayers.
Those very ratepayers and Klamath Project irrigators help
feed PacifiCorp directors, shareholders and employees, consequently doing
one thing that PacifiCorp also does: improving the quality of life for
employees, shareholders and ratepayers alike.
What a Mecca is this Klamath Basin!
Dams are built and maintained for many reasons. In the
Klamath Basin, dams exist both to provide water for the Klamath Project
and hydroelectric power for PacifiCorp.
Tribal concerns and those of self-proclaimed
"environmental" and "conservation" organizations, regarding
the very existence of dams, are certainly vocal. However, the fact
that tribal members, as well as the rest of the community that is the
Klamath Basin, benefit directly from the dams and their purpose, is
undeniable. Arguments for fish ladders may be well-placed, but the
temperature of the water in the Klamath River is influenced by many
factors other than dams.
In the twenty-first century, the existence of "meth"
labs has become something that has caused fish kills in the Klamath River.
This is not often reported or even recognized or admitted, but it is
no less a fact.
Other reasons for the warmer temperature of the Klamath
River are:
the region's natural environment, including, but not
limited to, the altitude, precipitation, climate, snowpack, snowmelt,
etc.;
the warm surface temperature of the Upper Klamath Lake,
which are not affected by any downstream dams;
and more reasons of which I am either unaware or that I
cannot call to mind at this time.
There are other websites that provide a great deal of
research and facts, including, but not limited to:
The continued existence of the Klamath Project and the
custom and culture of the Klamath Basin since the turn of the nineteenth
century, may not hinge on whether the Klamath River remains dammed, but
downriver water demands continue to expect the Project irrigators to
"get along" on less and less water each year. Granted, this may
seem like "recent history" to some, but the fact remains that
the bounty of the Klamath Basin -- through the generational devotion
and dedication of Klamath Project irrigators and farmers, who are also
property owners and PacifiCorp ratepayers -- is, with the exception
of the Willamette Valley, unsurpassed by any agricultural region in
the Pacific Northwest.
I ask, Linda, that you read the following paragraph and
consider the impact on this man's life and that of his family, plus their
custom and culture, property rights and future, that caused him to say:
"We
may now be expected to go to war for America, little knowing if we will
even have farms to come back to, because of the undue influence and
pressure that is destroying our American custom and culture as resource
providers due to the Endangered Species Act and the uninhibited lust that
the non-governmental agencies (notably the Nature Conservancy and the
Sierra Club among others) have for our lands. Almost one hundred years of
'sweat equity' are valued at as little as $28 per acre, and our wildlife
refuge inhabitants are suffering, too, at the hands of those who profess
to love wildlife, the 'environmentalists'" - Oregon farmer,
commenting after the horrors of 9-11 that prompted those at the Klamath
Falls, OR "A" Canal Headgates to break up camp and allow the
federal agency employees to be better utilized elsewhere for national
security.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Linda. I look
forward to your reply!
Miss Julie Kay Smithson, researcher
213 Thorn Locust Lane
London, Ohio 43140
Removal of Dams on the
Klamath River
Removal of dams on the Klamath is the objective of people who have no
interest in the Salmon or the fish in the lakes formed by the dams
Copco Dam is about 160 feet. Divers have reported sediment becomes
thick at about 55 feet. What happens to the 100 feet deep pool of
sediment that goes downriver if the dam is breached?
We can not say exactly how long it will take for the sediment to
complete
washing down the river to flush the 200 miles of river clean that it
can
once again support fish . That will vary with the river flows that will
be
controlled by weather . We will no longer be able to control flow for
fish or flooding without the dams.
Independent computer estimates claim 10 years are needed to restore
the ecosystem destroyed by silt to have food and habitat available for
fish to return to the river . Within 20 years it is possible to have
similar
stocks of Salmon as today. That
is only an estimate using the best
scientific information.
A fish kill on the river caused a drop in the returning fish , and harm
to a fishing season. What would be the effect of ten years with no
fish in the Klamath. Sport and commercial fishing would end for
all including the Tribes who depend on the river.
The only persons helped by the elimination of the dams would be
the environmental fund raisers. They
can claim to have provided
a "Free flowing river like nature intended" .That would give
the
donors in the metropolitan areas the incentive to donate for more
great success stories that
only tell the parts of the story that will
be to their glory.
Do not say anything about the damage to the river or the fish. Do
not mention the destruction of the fishery in the lakes above the
dams . The Bass, Perch, Bluegill, Crappie, Catfish, Trout, Etc
that will be in the mud to die .
Not to mention the power that will have to be replaced with a
polluting system of some sort . The Hydro-Power is clean and
can be quickly turned on to take up peak loads. It would take
a system running to be able to have power available for an
increase in demand on short notice .
The benefits of the dams and the hatchery for the fish, power,
fire protection, and flood control are something we should be
thankful for .
We must guard this system from those who would destroy it
for their own personal gain, or it will be gone like the timber
industry we had.
Robert Davis
Copco Lake Ca.
************************************************************************************
Removal
of Dams on the Klamath River
Dear Mrs. Pendergast,
I am sure you have received a lot of communications regarding opinions why
your corporation should or should not remove the dams along the Klamath
River.
I believe that the dams should NOT be removed.
In my report on ocean conditions and salmon survival you will note that
Chinook salmon returns to the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery had an average 2%
per year increase for 24-years (from about 1962 to 1985). Around
1985-1987 ocean conditions seemed to have changed in such a way as to
cause great salmon mortality and low salmon returns.
I also found that the hatchery selected the fish from the earliest runs to
propagate. This in turn caused the runs to arrive earlier.
Consequently more salmon are arriving during the warm water month of
August that would have occurred naturally before hatchery intervention.
In my report on the 2002 fish die-off on the lower Klamath you will find
that I believe that toxic chemicals rather than warm water caused the fish
KILL. There was the report of a meth lab dump in Ohpah Creek
(confluent to the Klamath River) and approximately 97% of the fish that
died were below this confluence.
Furthermore, in a statement by Harold Tripp, Traditional Fisherman
and Cultural Technician with the Karuk Department of Natural Resources he
said that “Last year, all the
fish were sick I could tell because they were bleeding, every time they
hit the net they would be bleeding before you clubbed them.
And after the river came up, about ten days later the fish got
better. So I think that if
they wouldn’t have released the water I think a lot more than 30,000
fish would have wound up dying. They had some kind of big boils on them
and some of them, had blisters”.
THE CONDITION OF THE FISH DESCRIBED
BY MR. TRIPP IS NOT LIKELY CAUSED FROM WARM WATER. And gill
disease is not coupled with external damage to the fishes skin surface
area.
You have, of course, been
subjected to a great deal of mis-information. I hope to balance what
you have received with some factual data which I have made every endeavor
to provide citations so the information can be verified.
I hope you will take the time to
read through these presentations.
Respectfully Yours,
Joe Greene
Research Biologist, Retired
******************************************************************************************************
Save Our Dams !!!!!
Where does one begin when there
are so many untruths, and one sided stories being circulated through the
press, Karuk Indians, and environmentalists. There is no way that the
everyday taxpaying working person can begin to compete with the
unlimited money resources of these groups (many of which yours and my
tax dollars are funding in the form of grants) except if we UNITE, stand
up for OUR rights, and speak out.
Those of us who want to
preserve the way of life we have now on the Klamath River must speak out
to everyone and anyone who will listen. Contact our press, contact all
of our elected officials. Let them know we are HERE, we do exist and the
real Northern California lies above Sacramento.
The issues begin with
saving fish and branches out to blue-green algae, both of which are
fixable issues and immediately the Karuk and environmentalist want to
remove the dams. Return the land to the state it as almost 100 years
ago.
How many of us at one point in
our lives or another has thought about how it use to be in the
"Good old Days" , but we also realize that those days are
memories and no matter what we do, we can not turn back the hands of
time. We can only strive to make the world we live in now a better
place. Removal of the dams is not the way to make things better. We
would only create even larger problems than we have now.
Our dams provide electricity,
flood control, fire control, homes for hundreds of species of wildlife,
tax revenue, recreation and so many more good things. They want us to
take these dams out and destroy all of these things and the very fish
they want to save.
I could go on and on and list
all the arguements of why removing the dams is bad science, but instead
I am going to on to you only a portion of the opinion polls we have received
in the last three weeks. Some are from visitors to our county, but
most are from our residents.
Sincerely,
N. Grant
Yreka, CA
Klamath Dam Removal
Dear Ms Prendergast,
No doubt of late you have been besieged with requests, more likely demands,
for removal of the dams on the
Klamath River
. I write this to add my support for
keeping the dams.
It is the current mantra that the dams are what is preventing the recovery of
the Salmon runs of the
Klamath River
. While the dam issue will need to be
dealt with in regards to re-establishment of Salmon runs, I see no evidence
that those who call for removal have any sort of idea as to what to do next. I
had always heard that once the unique genetics that belong to salmon returning
to a particular watershed are lost, that the recovery of those segments of the run
are pretty much doomed. That has been an argument used to press the need
for assuring that runs don't go extinct. Now we hear "remove the dams and they
will come". Sorry, but we need to have some idea of which side of that coin will
come up if removal actually happens.
It seems that a logical removal approach would be to remove one and see if
we are able to cope with sediment loads trapped behind the dam and further
to see if newly exposed tributaries will be used by returning salmon. But, no, we
hear the hue and cry to remove them all.
We also need to seriously explore what effect the dams in the river effect high
water flood events. Those who call for removal disregard the flood mitigation
potential by pointing out that the dams are nothing more than outdated power
generation facilities and were not designed for flood control. Maybe so, but the
flood control aspect needs to be addressed.
Siskiyou and Klamath counties stand to loose considerable tax revenue from
decommissioning the dams, something I have heard little about. How much do
those counties stand to loose and how will it affect them?
Until I hear discussion of these issues, I cannot support dam removal.
Steve Cheyne
Klamath Falls, Oregon
