Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  

            Brigade

   Send Donations Here

     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.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Except this one swims
 
By Leo W. Kivela
Siskiyou Daily News
October 21, 2010
 
Dear Editor,

Finally I am compelled to write. I have been reading the various positions on the Klamath dam removal issue since its inception. And I have a few questions that remain unanswered.

The first one is: the KBRA states the agricultural users are going to get the water they need, fish are going to have the water they need, virtually all the water users are going to be satisfied. Where is this additional water going to come from? There is presently not enough water in the Klamath River system to provide the assorted needs, yet removing the four dams is going to solve this. How? I fail to see how removing these dams is going to add one drop of water to the system.

Next is Dr. Gallo’s report that indicates, by your item in the paper recently, this is going to be of financial benefit to Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou and Klamath counties. While I won’t deny there will be the jobs created (although they will be short-term jobs, they are jobs), I have to question the validity of the alleged long-term benefits to the coastal counties to be created by the increased fish runs.

We have over the years had the life cycle of the salmon repeated until we can, or at least I can, repeat it by rote. So, here it comes again; please bear with me: the eggs hatch, the young salmon (parrs) swim down the river to the mouth, they become acclimated to the salt water, then enter the ocean, spend four or five years there, then return to the river they came from. The process then reverses; they become acclimated to fresh water, swim upstream to their place of birth, spawn, then die. This process is apparently imprinted in them at birth. It is instinctual, they simply can do nothing else.

They – provided they are able – will return to their place of birth to spawn, or die trying. So, we now have a process that is broken and the dam removal is going to repair that.

As near as I can determine, the process is broken in the ocean. The fish are born, swim down the river, enter the ocean, then very few come back. Less every year (except in the years ocean fishing is restricted; in these years runs increase).

Now according to the reports printed in your paper, the dam removal is going to fix this. HUH?

OK, I want someone to explain this to me in a way that makes sense. How do fish that no longer exist care what condition the river they were born in is in? That has to be the only reason they do not come back to spawn. They have no choice. They are no longer there. So, we fix the problem by repairing the next step in the process – we improve water quality and river conditions for fish that no longer exist. This is insanity!

So, apparently what we have here is the spotted owl all over again.

Except this one swims.

 
Readers comments:
 
lostvoice
 
I know it's been said before, it's really not about the fish and never has been. We are a enviromentalist 'pilot' program! We are rural and financially unable to do anything about this, this agenda has been in place for a long time, and, is now coming to the communities attention. We are already screwed. Even if G is passed, we are still screwed! Power and money!
 
MrsMom
 
Leo-you are right on. It has been impossible to understand this whole thing based on what they write in the paper. I don't want to say that there is a conspiracy here, but the whole story ain't been wrote! Certainly not by the Siskiyou Daily or the Herald. Pretty sad. I'd like to see some real research-based reporting. Maybe then we'd be educated voters.

BUT, I do have an answer for you on your first point.

Of Course, there is no new water-the agreements just set up better planning so the existing water is better used. Farmers don't need a lot of water 365 days of the year, and neither do fish. Fish need good flows for migration and spawning. Farmers/Ranchers need to water at key times for crops or pastures. The rest of the year the all need enough to get by. Bottom line, if we are smart about timing we can all share what we have.

The agreements put folks at the table with the FEDs to decide how much and where the water goes based on monthly weather forecasts. Its NOT new water, its just working together-stuff we all should have learned in Kindergarden, instead of fighting all the time.
Oh, and a side benefit of all of this is we may avoid letting a judge slam a gavel and take all the water for one side or the other.

And you are absolutely right-the dams have nothing to do with any of that. But, they ended up caught in the deal because they need a new license. Like it or not, the owners of the dams-a private for-profit company have decided to walk away from them.

As for you other question, I have a friend who knows a lot about fish. I'm going to ask him your other question and get back to you.
 


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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