Board hears numerous comments from the public at KBRA and KHSA forum

The public comment portion of the forum featured a wide range of emotions, ideas and viewpoints, with participants urging the board in both directions on the question – to sign or not to sign the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

Members of the public represented a wide array of groups, from politicians and tribes to ranchers and landowners along the Klamath River.

Dave Meurer, representing congressman Wally Herger, stated that Herger believes that dam removal is not “a done deal” and that the county has been asking good questions during the processes associated with the agreements. Also speaking was Oregon Sen. Jason Atkinson, who stated that after a water shut-off earlier in the decade he came to support the KBRA, adding that he would like to see the county at the table rather than not, supporting their signing of the two agreements.

Various tribes were also represented at the meeting, including the Yurok, Karuk, Quartz Valley and Shasta Indian Nation tribes, all of which expressed differing viewpoints of the dam removal process.

Troy Fletcher of the Yurok Tribe stated that it is the tribe’s stance that the processes need to be transparent and open to the public as well, also thanking the supervisors for supporting tribal rights for the Shasta and encouraging them to do so with all tribes.

Athena Bagwell of the Shasta Indian Nation stated that the tribe believes that all of the dams proposed for removal are within the Shasta Indian Nation’s aboriginal territory, adding that there is concern that dam removal could lead to the exposure of ancient burial sites belonging to the Shasta.

Allie Hostler, representing the Hoopa Tribe, said that there were a number of concerns for the tribe, including what it feels is a lack of sound peer-reviewed science, a lack of funding identified for dam removal activities and a lack of recognition of certain tribal water and fishing rights along the Klamath. “There will still be a water war” among the various parties in the basin, she said, discouraging the signing of the agreements by the county.

Representatives from the Karuk Tribe also spoke at the forum, including Craig Tucker, Art Super and Robert Goodwin. Tucker said that there came a point in the lead-up to the agreements that members of the tribe realized “these issues affect more than just the tribe,” deciding to negotiate with other groups in the basin. Super stated that the groups involved in the agreements range from fishermen, ranchers, farmers and tribes. All three men encouraged the board to sign the agreements.

Roy Hall, who identified himself as a representative of the Shasta Nation, stated that his tribe has been ignored in the agreement processes, saying that he believes that the agreements, if implemented, will destroy the culture, tradition and heritage of the Shasta Nation tribe. He read a number of treaties that he asserted were proof that the Shasta Nation owns the territory containing the dams. Board Chair Marcia Armstrong, who set the comment time at two minutes, repeatedly asked Hall to wrap up his comment so others could be heard, but a number of people in the crowd yelled that he needed to be allowed to finish.

Later in the meeting, Betty Hall, also of the Shasta Nation, read other treaties during her comment period.

Tom Mallams of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users Association stated that he has “great concerns” about the two agreements, explaining that he feels that signing them would make the county lose more than it could gain. He said that he believes the agreements are the result of a “liberal agenda from groups out of the area,” stating that he does not support dam removal or the KBRA as it is written.

Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association stated that he would support the county’s signing of the agreements, saying that his group feels that “we don’t have the luxury to do nothing. We can’t be ideological anymore.”

Frank Goodson, representing the Klamath County Republican Central Committee, said that his group is opposed to both agreements, citing a poll of his group’s Klamath County constituents in which 60 percent of those polled were opposed to the agreements. He added that he feels that Siskiyou County can effect more change through the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, rather than through the agreement processes.

Erica Terence of the Klamath Riverkeeper said that she feels that the agreements are “the most viable way to make the Klamath useable,” stating that she believes the agreements will bring in jobs and money to local communities.

People For the United States of America member Robert Davis stated that he believes the KBRA was formed “by questionable assumptions and coercion” and that it will take power away from farmers. He encouraged the county to not sign the agreements.

Curtis Knight of California Trout encouraged the signing of the agreements, stating that he believes they “represent a collaborative pathway for complex resource issues,” urging the county to stay involved in the processes.

Dr. Richard Gierak, representing the group Interactive Citizens United, stated that he believes the question facing the county was “to battle from within or without,” claiming that removing the dams “will result in the decimation of salmon runs ... the destruction of agriculture ... and the destruction of businesses.” He added that he believed the “green media” would minimize the county’s concerns and characterize the county’s position as being pro-dam removal if it were to sign the agreements.

The forum featured over 50 commenters from the public, more coverage of which will appear in Thursday’s Siskiyou Daily News.