[env-trinity] Dan Walters- Oregon dam removal may cost California

[Dan Bacher]

Glen

Walters is a political hack that keeps droning on and on in the Bee.  
He outlived his purpose, whatever it was, over 20 years go.

I disagree with Walters' contention that using public money for  
Klamath dam removal is unwarranted.

However, we must absolutely remove ANY Klamath dam removal money from  
the Water Bond, which creates the infrastructure for a peripheral  
canal and new dams.

Steinberg, the corporate neo-liberal Democrats, the corporate neo-con  
Republicans and the worst Governor in California history, Arnold  
Schwarzenegger, put the Klamath money in the bond
to falsely link Klamath Dam removal to building a peripheral canal  
and new dams.

Thanks
Dan




On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:52 PM, FISH1IFR at aol.com wrote:

> Colleagues ---
>
> Dan Walters' criticism of investing California tax money in Klamath  
> River salmon restoration efforts, particularly in four-dam removal  
> in what would be the largest dam removal, and one of the most  
> ambitious watershed restoration efforts, in the world comes down to  
> this:  Do you think a one-time investment of perhaps $90 million in  
> California tax dollars toward dam removal to help restore the third  
> largest salmon runs in the nation outside Alaska is worth it, in  
> light of the conservatively projected results: a more than 80%  
> increase in salmon returning adult numbers per year in the Klamath,  
> and more than a 46% increase in ocean commercial, and 58% Tribal  
> harvest increase, harvest opportunities all the way up and down the  
> coast, with the major job benefits in California -- is worth the  
> investment?
>
> These are the salmon economic benefits calculated (conservatively I  
> might add) to flow from the Klamath Dam removal project under the  
> Settlement Agreement in the recently published Draft Environmental  
> Impacts Statement, posted at:  www.klamathrestoration.gov.  Check  
> out especially the 4-page summary of economic impacts, and the 4- 
> page Summary of Key Conclusions both at:
>
>      http://klamathrestoration.gov/Draft-EIS-EIR/download-draft-eis- 
> eir
>
> Among other economic benefits, this would restore hundreds of  
> salmon-dependent jobs coastwide, plus the balance of some 4,600  
> jobs total estimated in the DEIS.  See the DEIS for detailed analysis.
>
> There is a very long history in California, as elsewhere, in  
> investing tax payer money in watershed and natural resource  
> restoration projects for a very good reason.  It helps the  
> economy.  In this case it boils down to whether its a good idea to  
> invest (one-time) that $90 million in California tax funds (raised  
> through conservation bonds, as is the general practice) to help  
> stabilize, protect and restore a $150 million/year California  
> salmon economy threatened by complete closures every time the  
> salmon runs in the Klamath collapse.  The complete closure of the  
> California ocean commercial salmon season in 2006 is what we have  
> to look forward to more and more unless things improve for salmon  
> in the Klamath.
>
> We at PCFFA -- not to mention the affected coastal county of  
> Humboldt -- believe this is a very smart investment in California's  
> economic future.
>
> Apparently Dan Walters believes otherwise.  But that is his sort- 
> sightedness, not ours.
>
>
> =============================================
> Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director
> Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA)
> PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
> O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500
> Email: fish1ifr at aol.com
> Home Page: www.pcffa.org
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/30/2011 11:26:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
> tstokely at att.net writes:
> Oregon dam removal may cost California
> http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/11/24/2626954/oregon-dam-removal-may- 
> cost-california.html
>
> 3 Comments (go to the website above to see them- they are all  
> interesting)
>
> Thursday, Nov. 24, 2011 | 09:42 PM
> The California Oregon Power Co. was founded in 1911 to supply  
> electricity to the southernmost Oregon counties and the  
> northernmost California counties. It built four hydroelectric power  
> dams on the Klamath River.
>
> The Klamath cuts across California's northwestern corner and is  
> incredibly remote. Until those dams were built, blocking spawning  
> runs, it supported an immense salmon and steelhead fishery that  
> sustained Indian tribes living along its banks.
>
> COPCO merged with Pacific Power and Light Co. in 1961. PP&L  
> eventually changed its name to PacificCorp, and in 2005 was  
> acquired by Warren Buffett.
>
> Those Klamath River dams have become very contentious factors in a  
> controversy over how the river's waters should be managed,  
> involving not only their effect on   fish, but the water supplies  
> of farmers in the Klamath Basin, the southern Oregon region where  
> the river begins.
>
> While Indian tribes and commercial fishermen demand elimination of  
> the dams to restore fish runs, farmers worry about irrigation water.
>
> The factions have worked out a deal to remove the four dams and  
> restore fish habitat, while protecting water supplies for those  
> farmers. California Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat who represents  
> the North Coast, and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkeley, have introduced  
> legislation to implement it.
>
> However, a big sticking point is its cost, about a billion dollars.  
> Thompson and Merkeley want the federal government to pay half,  
> which already is drawing opposition in a Republican-controlled  
> Congress. PacificCorp would pay about 25%. The remaining $250 million?
>
> The two legislators say it would come from "non-federal sources."
>
> They don't say that it would come from California taxpayers,  
> specifically a $250 million chunk of the $11.1 billion state water  
> bond that is scheduled to go before voters next year.
>
> And why should California taxpayers be on the hook?
>
> The dams' removal would have no effect, positive or negative, on  
> our water supply. The semi-official rationale -- weak at best -- is  
> that improving fish runs on the Klamath would offset losses of  
> habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
>
> But the bottom line is that, with interest on the bonds, it's a  
> half-billion-dollar gift from California taxpayers to Oregon  
> farmers and Warren Buffett, because PacificCorp would otherwise  
> have to pay for the dams' removal or attempt to get them  
> relicensed, a virtual impossibility.
>
> Given the season, one could say that it's a real turkey.
>
>
> [Unable to display image]
> DAN WALTERS WRITES FOR THE BEE’S CAPITOL BUREAU. E-MAIL:  
> DWALTERS at SACBEE.COM; MAIL: P.O. BOX 15779, SACRAMENTO, CA 95852.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111204/d94c397b/attachment.html>