|
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.
Dena Hendricks:
Water meeting
Red Bluff Daily News
Letter to the Editor
January 26, 2012
I recently attended a meeting whose purpose was to explain the Northern Sacremento Valley Integrated Water Plan.
I recently attended a meeting whose purpose was to explain the Northern Sacremento Valley Integrated Water Plan.
This water plan is unsettling to me
because I have been following the horror stories coming
from Siskiyou County and Klamath County, Oregon.
In both Klamath County and Siskiyou Counties federal and state bureaucracies are taking away farmers and ranchers water by using water plans called KBRA Klamath Basin Restoration Act.
They have a way of naming these "plans" in a way that sounds so harmless and benificial, being the exact opposite.
Last week's meeting was the second I have attended both with the same agenda to placate us into thinking these "grants" are just money not our tax dollars.
They were funded by a $900,000 grant our part of a 1 billion dollar water bond, prop 84 voted on in 2006.
These meetings are only held for the facilitators to justify their salaries.
At both meetings it was obvious they wanted a controlled one sided forum that didn't include answering questions they are obviously trained to avoid.
In both Klamath County and Siskiyou Counties federal and state bureaucracies are taking away farmers and ranchers water by using water plans called KBRA Klamath Basin Restoration Act.
They have a way of naming these "plans" in a way that sounds so harmless and benificial, being the exact opposite.
Last week's meeting was the second I have attended both with the same agenda to placate us into thinking these "grants" are just money not our tax dollars.
They were funded by a $900,000 grant our part of a 1 billion dollar water bond, prop 84 voted on in 2006.
These meetings are only held for the facilitators to justify their salaries.
At both meetings it was obvious they wanted a controlled one sided forum that didn't include answering questions they are obviously trained to avoid.
I was greatful for those in the audience
for proding them into answering at least where the money
came from.
There was no threatened altercation.
The other concern of mine is that this money is being wasted on "planning" and not used in a productive manner as in dams, or reseviors for storage.
Seems to me like a water bond should be used for something to aid in food production not destroy it.
The next threat is that it could be used to take out the four dams on the Klamath River, which would be the largest dam removal to date in the world.
Destroying a major source of clean energy, countless jobs, and so many farms and ranches that we are very dependant on for food.
At an estimated cost of 250 million dollars (which with the government involved it will go way higher).
The last dam removal destroyed a huge ecosystem killing who knows how many fish that were supposed to be "saved".
Makes me wonder if Shasta Dam could be the next target of the radical environmental movent all done under the guise of a planning process?
I say we defund the billion dollar bond and use any unspent "grant" money to pay down our debt.
Dena Hendricks, Red Bluff
The other concern of mine is that this money is being wasted on "planning" and not used in a productive manner as in dams, or reseviors for storage.
Seems to me like a water bond should be used for something to aid in food production not destroy it.
The next threat is that it could be used to take out the four dams on the Klamath River, which would be the largest dam removal to date in the world.
Destroying a major source of clean energy, countless jobs, and so many farms and ranches that we are very dependant on for food.
At an estimated cost of 250 million dollars (which with the government involved it will go way higher).
The last dam removal destroyed a huge ecosystem killing who knows how many fish that were supposed to be "saved".
Makes me wonder if Shasta Dam could be the next target of the radical environmental movent all done under the guise of a planning process?
I say we defund the billion dollar bond and use any unspent "grant" money to pay down our debt.
Dena Hendricks, Red Bluff
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
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