Yreka, Calif. —
Siskiyou County may soon have a resolution formally opposing
the report on an economic study revealed last week titled
“Economic Impact of the Klamath Settlement
Agreements,” prepared by Dr. David Gallo of the University
of California, Davis.
County Counsel Thomas Guarino brought before the board an
analysis of the report, focusing a large part of his
argument on the reference to $20 million in the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) for economic development
in Siskiyou County.
Guarino contends
that the $20 million for the county comes as part of the $11
billion water bond that was recently put off at least until
2012, and is not linked at all to the KBRA, as stated in the
report.
“County Counsel
served as the Board’s negotiator in these discussions and
reported then, and confirms now, that the group specifically
identified that the $20 Million in item 96 was not and would
not be a part of any federal funding, and in fact that all
references to the County, because the County did not sign
the KBRA and [Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement],
would be removed from those Agreements,” Guarino states in
his analysis.
Guarino also
mentions a report the board pushed to have released in 2008
that detailed the potential costs of dam removal, which he
states is not considered in Gallo’s report.
The potential cost
and liability report, prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee,
estimates potential impacts in the hundreds of millions of
dollars, without assessing possible benefits of dam removal.
At the meeting
Tuesday, District 4 Supervisor Grace Bennett took issue with
the fact that Gallo’s study did not assess potential costs.
Board Chair Marcia
Armstrong called the report part of a long line of “bogus
science” from environmental groups, and District 1
Supervisor Jim Cook claimed that a number of statements were
not factual, including the assumption made in the study that
dam removal would increase fish populations by 100 percent.
District 3
Supervisor Michael Kobseff agreed, stating that he feels the
study and report are biased and lacking in objectivity.
District 2
Supervisor Ed Valenzuela said that if the county wanted to
counter the results, it would have to commission its own
study, although he explained that he believes some of the
findings were not “far off base.”
Gallo’s study, which
was commissioned by PROSPER and California Trout, concluded
that Siskiyou County would find an economic benefit in the
event the agreements are implemented.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
