Linkage of KBRA and KHSA keeps some supervisors from signing 

The first to speak when the discussion came back to the board was District 1 Supervisor Jim Cook, who asked Department of the Interior (DOI) representative John Bezdek to list the parties that have signed the KHSA and KBRA.

Bezdek named a number of parties that have signed the KHSA, but said that he did not know all of the parties that have signed the KBRA, a document to which the federal government is not a party. Both agreements, along with who has signed each as of March 5, can be downloaded from www.edsheets.com.

Cook took issue with one name Bezdek read from the KHSA signatories – Arthur Baggett – calling Baggett’s signing of the KHSA as an individual “on the edge of disgusting” because of Baggett’s work for the State Water Resources Control Board, which has under its authority a number of water quality issues involving the dams.

In a footnote to the agreement, it is noted that Baggett, an “Individual Non-Party Signatory,” signed the agreement “as a recommendation to the California State Water Resources Control Board, and not as a Party.”

It was stated that Baggett has recused himself from the water board since signing the KHSA, a point which Cook stated that he did not believe.

Other topics touched on included the recipients of funding as a part of the agreements, how regulations under the Clean Water Act will be met and the fisheries restoration work done by the California Department of Fish and Game in Siskiyou County.

District 3 Supervisor Michael Kobseff asked Bezdek what is the status of the Klamath Compact in the two agreements. The compact is a two-state agreement between California and Oregon, the purpose of which is “[t]o facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use, conservation and control thereof for various purposes, including, among others: The use of water for domestic purposes; the development of lands by irrigation and other means; the protection and enhancement of fish, wildlife and recreational resources; the use of water for industrial purposes and hydroelectric power production; and the use and control of water for navigation and flood prevention,” according to language in the compact itself.

Bezdek said that language in the two agreements states that nothing in the agreements is meant to supercede current law, and the compact is a matter of federal law.

Further discussion covered the citing for trespassing of a group of men claiming to be doing testing for the DOI, a report from the National Research Council regarding flow levels in the Klamath and how the KBRA may be changed during the legislative process that is required to initiate both agreements.

The discussion then turned to each supervisor, with District 2 supervisor Ed Valenzuela stating that he felt that the county needed to sign the agreements and stay inside the process. “To say no when the train’s already left will get you nowhere,” he said.

Cook stated that he had taken part in a number of the “super secret” meetings in which the agreements were crafted, stating that he felt that the meetings became more about removing the dams than reaching a settlement among different water users and stakeholders. His biggest concern, he stated, is the linkage of the two agreements, saying that he would be willing to sign the KHSA to stay involved, but that he could not agree to the proposals in the KBRA.

Kobseff stated that he believes there has been little effort by government agencies in “putting more fish in the system.” He added that he would not support signing either agreement if the county had to sign both.

Citing past science efforts in the Klamath basin, Board Chair Marcia Armstrong stated that she feels that the process thus far has been unequal and “a very exclusive process.” She also expounded on what she feels are uncertainties in the agreements, including funding for mitigation of possible effects on the county from dam removal, funding for replacement sources of energy to offset the removal of the power-producing dams and the potential effects to the city of Yreka’s water supply.

Armstrong then moved to reject the agreements and not sign either one.

In the ensuing discussion, Cook reiterated that he would not sign either if they are linked, and Valenzuela stated that while he does not like that the two are linked, he would vote to stay engaged in the process.

District 4 Supervisor Grace Bennett agreed with Cook, stating that if the county could sign the KHSA and not the KBRA, she would support being “in the forefront of negotiations.” Bezdek noted later, when asked, that at this point in time, the agreements are linked and the county would be required both.

Bezdek also stated that regardless of the county’s vote, the federal government would work with the county through available means. He added that the two agreements have been compiled by a number of entities, a majority of which have identified a linkage between the two. “We will continue to work with you and incorporate your concerns,” he said of the DOI.