<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<HR>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4> </FONT>
<P></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>KLAMATH RIVER BASIN</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Editorial: Klamath plan needs to be solid
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Eureka Times-Standard -
7/29/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Everyone knew months ago that this fall the Klamath River would be looking a
lot like it did in 2002, when tens of thousands of fish died in a hot, shallow
river. </P>
<P>Despite the biological and political chaos that horrific event generated,
federal officials are only now developing a plan to deal with another such
possibility this year. </P>
<P>The U.S. departments of Interior and Commerce have been scrambling to come up
with water to let down the river in case the emergency arises. To date, Interior
has bought up at least 25,000 acre feet of water at $28 an acre foot --
$700,000. It's buying it from California contractors that likely pay a lot less
for that water themselves.</P>
<P>Unfortunately, the government is buying water to protect a resource it is
bound to protect, all the while ignoring Humboldt County's claim to 50,000 acre
feet of Trinity River water -- which would likely be handed over for free to
help salmon on the Klamath. </P>
<P>Both the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State Water Resources Control
Board point at each other when they're asked which agency must free up the
water, water that is clearly allocated to the county as part of the 1955 act
authorizing the Trinity River diversion to the Sacramento River. </P>
<P>In 2002, the government couldn't have acted more slowly to put water down the
Klamath and open up the salmon run's tight quarters. In 2004, all we can hope is
that the response will be faster. #</P>
<P> </P></DIV></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>KLAMATH RIVER BASIN</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Tribes: Dam removal on the table
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Klamath Falls Ore. Herald & News -
7/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>By Dylan Darling, staff
writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>The chief executive officer of PacifiCorp's parent company, Scottish Power,
vowed he will have the company do more to get salmon up the Klamath River,
reported members of a multi-tribes delegation that was in Scotland last
week.</P>
<P>"He said dam removal is back on the table," said Jeff Mitchell, who made the
trip, representing both the Klamath Tribes and the Klamath Intertribal Fish and
Water Commission. </P>
<P></P>
<P>Scottish Power CEO Ian Russell, along with PacifiCorp President and CEO Judi
Johansen, met with some of the delegation the day before the company's annual
general stockholders' meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, Friday. But a PacifiCorp
spokesman in Portland said while the tribes are free to meet with whom they
want, if they want changes, they need to stay involved with the stateside
talks.</P>
<P>"The real substantive talks of the process are the ones we have been holding
out here all along," said Jon Coney, company spokesman. </P>
<P></P>
<P>Representatives from the Klamath, Karuk, Hoopa and Yurok tribes, along with
officials from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the
Sacramento-based conservation group Friends of the River, were in Scotland to go
to the stockholder meeting because they weren't satisfied with how PacifiCorp
was handling the issue of salmon passage in its application for a new 50-year
hydroelectric dam license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.</P>
<P>During their meeting, Russell said he would pay attention to the Klamath
salmon issue and that Johansen would meet with the tribes regularly, Mitchell
said. </P>
<P></P>
<P>Also while on the other side of the Atlantic, members of the group of about
20 split up, some meeting with investors in London and two others meeting with
conservation groups and European Union officials in Brussels, Belgium, earlier
in the week.</P>
<P>The European Union is made up of 25 European countries, including the United
Kingdom, France and Spain. It has a parliament with representatives from member
countries. </P>
<P></P>
<P>Mitchell, who along with Kelly Catlett, an attorney for Friends of the River,
went to Brussels for three days, said they were able to meet with the
equivalents of chiefs of staff for some members of the EU parliament and with
one parliament member in person.</P>
<P>He said the EU officials mostly just heard them out. </P>
<P></P>
<P>In Scotland, the delegation made national television news broadcasts, were on
the airwaves of the BBC and became regulars in the Scottish newspapers.</P>
<P>"We were pretty much in the news every day," said Edward Guyer, a member of
the Hoopa Tribal Council. </P>
<P></P>
<P>They also got the attention of the Scottish Parliament, one of whose members
drew up a motion to support the tribes in their effort to restore salmon even
before the tribes got there.</P>
<P>In part, the motion by Scottish Legislator Robin Harper said parliament
"regards Scottish Power's failure to include salmon restoration strategies in
its future plans as a failure and calls on Scottish Power to lead the way in
taking active measures to reverse the decline in salmon numbers in what was once
America's third greatest salmon river." </P>
<P></P>
<P>Friday, the representatives from the different tribes gathered together for a
demonstration outside the stockholder meeting. They sang, drummed and had a
salmon bake during the four-to five-hour demonstration, according to an e-mail
account by Kathy Hill, a member of the Klamath Tribes who was part of the
delegation.</P>
<P>Inside the meeting, Mitchell and Leaf Hillman, vice chairman of the Karuk
Tribe, spoke before the stockholders. Hill wrote that their presentation must
have been powerful. </P>
<P></P>
<P>"As one shareholder told us when she left: 'I was shattered when I learned
what has happened to you,' " Hill wrote. "Other shareholders expressed similar
emotions, and we heard there were a few in tears."</P>
<P>Hillman said the delegation went to Europe because after 2-1/2 years of
meeting with PacifiCorp officials for a week per month, the company didn't
include any plans for improved fish passage in its FERC application as the four
tribes wanted. </P>
<P></P>
<P>"That sent us a message that we need to do more than continue to talk to
PacifiCorp," he said.</P>
<P>Although the trip to Europe was expensive, it cost less than the meetings the
tribes have been involved with over the last 2-1/2 years, Guyer said. He said it
cost about $9,000 to send him and another member of his tribe on the trip, which
was paid by an anonymous corporation. Mitchell said the costs of sending members
of the Klamath Tribes was paid by tribes and "environmental friends." </P>
<P></P>
<P>Hillman and Mitchell said the tribes will be back to meet with Scottish Power
officials again, and they plan to go to next year's stockholders' meeting.</P>
<P>They might even be back sooner, depending on how the continuing talks with
PacifiCorp go stateside. </P>
<P></P>
<P>"If we run into a stalemate, we'll be back," Mitchell said.</P>
<P>He said the tribes might also come back to Europe to meet with other
organizations and governing bodies, such as human rights committees and the
United Nations. </P>
<P></P>
<P>"I expect we will probably continue this and we will take it to a broader
group of people on the other side of the world - it is not just a Klamath
Issue," Mitchell said.</P>
<P><FONT face=Tahoma>PacifiCorp response disputes Klamath Tribes' lawsuit
claims</FONT> </P>
<P></P>
<P>Portland-based PacifiCorp says that $1 billion in damage claims from the
Klamath Tribes for the loss of salmon in the Klamath Basin are unjustified,
according to papers filed in federal court in mid-July.</P>
<P>The Tribes say the dams of the power company and its predecessors have
blocked passage of Klamath River salmon, which they say were once a staple for
their people. The claims were filed in May. The salmon migrated from the Pacific
Ocean to the Basin to spawn. </P>
<P></P>
<P>In response, the PacifiCorp said:</P>
<P>- The hydroelectric facilities were designed and constructed in conformance
with industry custom and state-of-the-art performance standards existing at the
time of their construction. Most of the dams were put in during the first half
of the 1900s. </P>
<P></P>
<P>- The facilities were designed, constructed and are operated in compliance
with state and federal law.</P>
<P>- The Tribes damage claims shouldn't be allowed because they go against the
Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines.
#</P>
<P> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>KLAMATH RIVER BASIN / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ISSUES</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Editorial: Don't dismiss tribal claims out of
hand</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Klamath Falls Ore. Herald & News -
7/27/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>It would be wise not to make too much or too little of the idea that the
Klamath Tribes may file a raft of claims against the federal government. A
tribal group is discussing the idea, as reported Sunday.</P>
<P>A claim against the government for turning Crater Lake into a national park,
for example, seems far fetched. It is far fetched. But far-fetched ideas
sometimes bear fruit.</P>
<P>Just let the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decide that the federal
government owes an Indian tribe for a national park, and watch all hell break
loose around here and across the nation.</P>
<P>You'd see front-page stories from coast to coast about the possibility that
the federal government would have to give up or pay for gems like Crater Lake,
Yellowstone and Yosemite. It would make for a lot of interesting news and
comment until the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in once again to put the 9th back
in its place.</P>
<P>But so far, all this is speculation. You never know what might happen in the
courts. Absent a real lawsuit that cites an actual basis for a claim, there's
not much to talk about.</P>
<P>Except this: The Klamath Tribes clearly is trying to strengthen its hand in
the overall struggle over Klamath Basin resources. Foremost for the tribes is
land, restoration of the reservation that was sold when the tribal organization
was terminated in the 1950s.</P>
<P>This is the long-term objective of the tribes, and many of its members have
been pursuing it almost from the moment of termination. Most of the Klamath
Tribes' actions, including its positions in the water struggle, should be seen
in this light. So should the idea that the Tribes are considering a gaggle of
claims over Crater Lake, wildlife management and the like.</P>
<P>Within the Klamath Basin, there's little support for restoring a reservation.
That doesn't mean that courts or an unfriendly federal government might not
force one on the Basin, or that support couldn't be generated if a reservation
were part of an overall deal to settle the water struggle. As things stand
today, though, the tribes have little chance at a land settlement.</P>
<P>But time and things change. The Klamath Tribes have access to a fund of
money, size unspecified, through its claims committee, and it has national
backing from the likes of the Native American Rights Fund, headquartered in
Denver. So long as the tribes can afford to field lawyers, it will attempt to
advance the cause of tribal land. If just one claim sticks, that will change the
overall position of all the players in the great Basin struggle.</P>
<P>This is not something that anybody in the Klamath Basin can dismiss, no
matter what anybody thinks of the idea of a restored reservation or the merits
of the tribal claims.#</P>
<P> </P></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>