Klamath TMDL workshop features both sides of heated issue 

The workshop began with a presentation from David Leland, of the NCRWQCB, who gave an overview of where the process is, as well as a brief look at some of the common themes that have been identified in the written comments.

Leland also addressed some of the misunderstandings he said were present in some of the submitted comments, which numbered around 244 before the oral comments submitted at Thursday’s meeting.

Leland said that staff had identified some commenters that appeared to believe that those who discharge pollutants must “clean the water to pristine quality.” He said that dischargers must only address their own pollutants, not clean the whole river.

Leland also addressed water rights, saying that the TMDL does not affect anyone’s water rights, and he also stated that the TMDL is “neutral on the future of the dams.”

When discussing the comment themes, Leland said that “comments received ended on both sides of the spectrum.” For example, he showed that with regard to water quality, some comments stated that the objectives are “unrealistic and unacheivable,” while other comments stated that the objectives did not go far enough.

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