[env-trinity] Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at BaysideGrange????

Jim Carpenter windhorse at jeffnet.org
Mon Mar 28 10:52:28 PDT 2011


Greetings,
All good comments, however it should be noted it's not just tribes and enviros that are opposed, a small minority (though vocal and well connected) of the ag community here in the Upper Basin contunue their attacks on both agreements, and as noted, this works well for PacifiCorp since they can go on with annual extensions to their expired permit for years while others stir the pot for them.
Having worked on Klamath water issues for the past 20 years it's my perception that it is past time for us all to join ranks and work for a truly sustainable ecosystem in the broadest sense of the word, organized around a free flowing Klamath River.  What more compelling vision for our future could there be than undertaking a restoration project on this scale, imperfect and unresolved as some of the details may be?
Jim



Visit our Websites:
www.CarpenterDesign.com
www.BirdingandBoating.com
541 885 5450
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: summerhillfarmpv at aol.com 
  To: kierassociates at suddenlink.net ; t.schlosser at msaj.com ; env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org 
  Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at BaysideGrange????


  Tom, Bill, et all, I think we are getting distracted from the real issues here.  We have differing opinions on what the KHSA and KBRA will do for the river and fishery.  Some say it means less water for the river and some the opposite.  The fact is that in most years there will be much more water going to the river than in the past, especially during dry years.  Take a look at the graphs on historical diversions vs. what will happen under the KBRA.  Glen Spain and I worked for nearly 2 months to prevent waiver of the ESA requirements in the critically dry years, so meeting the BiOp requirements is still required, and thus the ag allotment can be lowered based on that if needed.  It's true, more water is going to Ag than we in the negotiations wanted, but that was the compromise we made based on additional restoration, ground water management and over-sight, along with a volunteer water right reduction program for upper basin Ag.  

  Tom Hardy was very clear in our science meeting in Mt. Shasta that he felt the reduced flows in the river under drought conditions would work for fish as long as the dams were out.  My memory was that flows as low as 700 cfs would support the fishery.  I realize Hoopa biologist disagreed, as did Bill Trush, but all others agreed with Tom (24 biologists).  

  The KBRA and KHSA are not perfect agreements only because they don't provide everything the environmental community and Tribes would like.  That said, if they were perfect to all of us, it never would have reached the agreement state we now have.  Frankly, all sides have to feel they can "live with the final agreement" and that is what happened.  No side felt "they won", yet neither did they feel they lost.  

  Let's not forget that nearly $600 million was already committed to the Klamath basin recovery, so to say we're adding a $1 Billion dollar deal here is not totally accurate.  Pacific Corp has done their work to determine what is in their best interest and that is the KHSA, and I don't think any of the rest of us want the dams to stay.  This is the best path forward in the shortest amount of time.  Why can't we work together to get it done instead of fighting over who is right?  The deals are only as good as the effort put in to get them completed.  If the two deals get completed the basin will be better off than today, and we have the chance to have salmon and steelhead in the upper basin for the first time in nearly 100 years.  Implementation of the other pieces are critical to flows, and that needs to get completed.  Undermining the agreements only means that none of it gets completed, which I see as a huge loss for the basin, its communities and the fishery.
  Mark Rockwell

  In a message dated 3/28/2011 9:48:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kierassociates at suddenlink.net writes:
    Tom

    With the greatest respect and regard for your counsel, believe me, Ive just got to stick my oar in here : 

    At the time of the administrative proceedings in Sacramento - when was that, 2007 ? - most of the fish agency folks thoroughly believed your proposition, below, that 'The only license FERC can issue to PacifiCorp will require construction of full volitional fish passage, work so expensive that PacifiCorp will remove the dams instead.'

    The prob with the way that we regulate utilities, however, is that the utility can recover the full cost of mandated improvements to its assets - plus its established rate of profit - X% on top of its (the ratepayers') out of pocket costs

    So the world of utility regulation is this sort of upside-down business model where greater expenses actually add profit (and dividends for the utilities' shareholders) - goofy, I know, and hard to keep one's brain wrapped around - but that's the way it is. 

    The volitional fish passage work, had it been the path taken, would have been idiotic - but profitable to the utility/ its shareholders

    That said, I, too, wish for satisfaction of PacifiCorps' Clean Water Act responsibilities.

    'Best to all,

    Bill

    At 08:58 AM 3/28/2011, Tom Schlosser wrote:

      Please note that this event raises funds for the legislative effort that's very questionable and quite controversial in the Basin.B The legislation demanded by PacifiCorp and the other KHSA parties must also ratify the KBRA, complete with its unfair allocation of water away from the Klamath River, and its required billion in federal appropriations. Rather than lobbying Congress for this poorly designed legislation, parties should be lobbying the SWRCB and ODEQ to complete their CWA Sec. 401 application processes and let the FERC process resume.B The only license FERC can issue to PacifiCorp will require construction of full volitional fish passage, work so expensive that PacifiCorp will remove the dams instead. FERC has a decommissioning policy that works. See Tacoma v. FERC http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf

      Legislation isn't necessary for dam removal. PacifiCorp made a deal (with some groups and pols) which has no fixed removal date. They like that. They're cheerfully watching the process go sideways, ...which they have every right to do under the KHSA. Folks need to read the documents carefully and examine the exit options. 

      Tom

      On 3/27/2011 3:09 PM, Byron Leydecker wrote: 

        B 
        B 
        From: Dan Bacher [ mailto:danielbacher at fishsniffer.com] 
        Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:49 PM
        Subject: Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at Bayside Grange!
        B 
        Below is information about a great event hosted by the Klamath Justice Coalition and Klamath Riverkeeper in Arcata this Friday, April 1, at 6 p.m.
        B 
        Thanks
        Dan
        B 
        Dear friends,
        B 
        This Friday, April 1 is the Speak for the Klamath fundraiser hosted by the Klamath Justice Coalition and Klamath Riverkeeper at the Bayside Grange in Arcata (flyer attached). It would be great to see you there.
        B 
        The event features frybread tacos, local beer and wine, an auction of local art, film shorts, spoken word, live music and t-shirt sales. Doors open at 6 p.m., and there's a suggested $10 donation. Proceeds from the event will help send a delegation of Klamath River activists to Washington D.C. to advocate dam removal on the Klamath.
        B 
        We'd really appreciate your support, whether it's by attending the event, volunteering (if you or someone you know can volunteer, please e-mail me) or spreading the word! Become a shareholder in one of the world's largest restoration projects and join the movement to restore an almost 16,000 square mile ecosystem.
        B 
        Erica Terence
        Conservation Director/Executive Director
        Klamath Riverkeeper
        PO Box 751
        Somes Bar, CA 95568
        B 
        530.627.3311 (office)
        530.340.5415 (cell)
        B 
        http://www.klamathriver.org 
        B 
        B 
        Byron Leydecker
        Chair, Friends of Trinity River
        PO Box 2327
        Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327
        415 383 4810 land
        415 519 4810 mobile
        bwl3 at comcast.net 
        bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org 
        http://www.fotr.org
        B 
        B 
        B 
        B 


_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list

env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us

http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

      -- 
      Important notices
      _______________________________________________
      env-trinity mailing list
      env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
      http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
    Kier Associates, Fisheries and Watershed Professionals
    P.O. Box 915
    Blue Lake, CA 95525
    707.668.1822 
    mobile: 498.7847 
    http://www.kierassociates.net
    GSA Advantage Contractor GS-10F-0124U 

    _______________________________________________
    env-trinity mailing list
    env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
    http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  env-trinity mailing list
  env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
  http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110328/6a3d74db/attachment-0001.html


More information about the env-trinity mailing list