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.

 

 

 

 

      

 

 
Siskiyou updates:  Klamath agreements
 
By David Smith
Siskiyou Daily News
September 21, 2010
 

Siskiyou County, Calif. — 

 

Agreements on the Klamath River have received attention around the region recently, ranging from discussions with the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors to the Siskiyou County courts.

Brownfields Partners sediment study evaluation

The county is utilizing the consulting firm Brownfields Partners in order to analyze the results of sediment studies being undertaken as part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA).

The agreement requires the analysis of a number of issues to inform a decision as to whether four dams will be removed on the Klamath River, with the sediment studies covering potential toxic content, volume and modeling of how sediment might travel down the river based on a number of scenarios.

Currently, the firm is working on the follow-up analysis of the sediment toxins, with the technical team still waiting on data for samples that had to be retaken.

The initial results, according to the United States Department of the Interior, indicate that the sediment toxin levels may not be harmful to humans.

County Counsel Thomas Guarino stated at the board’s Sept. 14 meeting that Brownfields is also working on a grant application so that the county may participate in other studies during the KHSA processes.

Klamath Basin Coordinating Council

The KBCC is responsible for evaluating and reporting the status of programs under the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which sets forth a large-scale plan for the restoration of fisheries in the Klamath River basin and attempts to rectify water disputes throughout the region.

The KBRA states, “The KBCC shall publish an annual report not later than March 31 in the following year, to evaluate the status of performance of the obligations under this Agreement, any causes for delay or non-performance, and any efforts to cure such non-performance.”

The KBCC has formed and has held meetings, including a Sept. 10 meeting in Eureka attended by Natural Resources Policy Specialist Ric Costales.

Costales said that the meeting involved a discussion of how to hold public comment portions, with Petey Brucker, representing the Salmon River Restoration Council, telling the council that they should make time on every agenda to hear comments, as Siskiyou County and other entities have input on the process.

Tulelake Irrigation District validation motion

The Siskiyou County Superior Court has under review a motion in the case titled Tulelake Irrigation District v. All persons having or claiming to have an interest in the validity of agreements entered into by Tulelake Irrigation District entitled “Klamath Basin Restoration  for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities” and “Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement.”

In its request for relief, TID asks the court to officially validate the KBRA and KHSA, the resolutions passed by TID ratifying the agreements and “all procedural and substantive actions taken by TID related to entering into” the agreements.

Along with the request for validation, TID also asks the court to enjoin any entity from raising an issue as to whether the judgment of the court in issuing validation is binding and conclusive.

The county intervened in the proceedings to demur, or request that the case be dismissed, claiming that TID has not stated a cause of action under the applicable validation statutes, that the KHSA and KBRA are not contracts and therefore cannot be validated, and that the matter of validity is not “ripe for review.”

Part of the issue for the county, according to its request for demurrer, is that the two agreements cannot constitute contracts because they rely on future legislation, making them “too vague to constitute contracts.”

“To validate the documents would treat preliminary procedural documents as enforceable contracts, before the obligations of the alleged contract are even set,” the motion states.

No basis in validation law supports such premature action and validation would restrict the ability of Siskiyou Agencies to discharge their respective constitutional and statutory responsibilities.”

The county’s response was filed in July, with the case a recurring topic at the board’s closed session hearings, although no information has become available as to what is expected to happen next in the case.

Opposition to agreements

Members of the board of supervisors have on multiple occasions stated their opposition to dam removal, with the board voting 4 to 1 in April to not sign either agreement.

Tuesday, the board, acting as the Siskiyou Flood Control and Water Conservation District, will discuss whether or not it will reaffirm the district’s opposition to the agreements with a letter sent to the Klamath River Compact Committee, the Oregon Water Resources Department and the northern district of the California Department of Water Resources.

 

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