The study, “Economic Impact of the Klamath Settlement Agreements,” was prepared for the groups California Trout and PROSPER, or the Partnership to Restore Stability and Prosperity to the Region.

The supervisors recently expressed their dissastisfaction with the results of the study, which reports a positive impact on the county’s economy from the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which lay out plans for the possible removal of four dams on the Klamath River and various restoration activities, respectively.

The draft resolution the board will consider Tuesday takes issue with the lack of consideration of potential negative impacts to the county, which the report states were not considered in the study.

Of those potential impacts, the draft resolution lists impacts on schools, diminuition of property values, costs associated with the removal of dam debris, the removal of the Iron Gate fish hatchery and impacts on flatwater recreation.

The resolution lists figures from a report prepared for the Department of the Interior that discusses potential negative impacts of dam removal without assessing potential benefits.
Thus far, no studies have been released that combine projections of both negative and positive impacts.

The resolution lists other issues the board has taken with the report, including what it believes is a mischaracterization of the $20 million to be given to the county with the passage of California’s water bond, expected to go to vote in 2012. The resolution states that that money is independent of both agreements, contending that the report states otherwise.

The resolution resolves that “the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou finds and declares that this report is not a valid study of the severe economic detriment to Siskiyou County from the proposed dam removal,” also proposing that the resolution, in its final form, be sent to the secretary of the interior, the governor of California and a number of other representatives and agencies.

The resolution concludes by directing the clerk of the board to send a copy to the program manager in charge of the team responsible for informing the decision of whether or not to remove the dams, Dennis Lynch, “as its formal objection to the use of this study in the [National Environmental Policy Act] and [California Environmental Quality Act] process as it does not conform to the required scientific standards and peer review required for the use of such studies.”