<html>
<body>
<font face="Garamond" size=4>You needn't name me in any further
communications on this subject, Mark - I was simply speaking to the
upside nature of utility regulation - which is difficult to keep clearly
in mind. The Central Valley/Bay-Delta is conundrum enough for me to work
on, I didn't mean to inject myself into the KBRA/KHSA debate/grinder -
Adios. Bill<br><br>
</font>At 10:12 AM 3/28/2011, summerhillfarmpv@aol.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>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. <br>
<br>
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). <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
Mark Rockwell<br>
<br>
In a message dated 3/28/2011 9:48:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
kierassociates@suddenlink.net writes:<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Garamond" size=4>Tom<br><br>
<dd>With the greatest respect and regard for your counsel, believe me,
Ive just got to stick my oar in here : <br><br>
<dd>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.'<br><br>
<dd>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</u> of its (the
ratepayers') out of pocket costs<br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>The volitional fish passage work, had it been the path taken, would
have been idiotic - but profitable to the utility/ its
shareholders<br><br>
<dd>That said, I, too, wish for satisfaction of PacifiCorps' Clean Water
Act responsibilities.<br><br>
<dd>'Best to all,<br><br>
<dd>Bill<br><br>
</font>
<dd><font size=2>At 08:58 AM 3/28/2011, Tom Schlosser wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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
rat<font size=2>ify the KBRA</font>, 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
<a href="http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf">
http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf</a><br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>Tom<font size=2><br><br>
<dd>On 3/27/2011 3:09 PM, Byron Leydecker wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>B <br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>From:</b> Dan Bacher
[<a href="mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:49 PM<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at Bayside
Grange!<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>Thanks<br>
<dd>Dan<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>Dear friends,<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>Erica Terence<br>
<dd>Conservation Director/Executive Director<br>
<dd>Klamath Riverkeeper<br>
<dd>PO Box 751<br>
<dd>Somes Bar, CA 95568<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>530.627.3311 (office)<br>
<dd>530.340.5415 (cell)<br>
<dd>B <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.klamathriver.org/">http://www.klamathriver.org</a>
<br>
</u>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>B <br>
</b>
<dd>Byron Leydecker<br>
<dd>Chair, Friends of Trinity River<br>
<dd>PO Box 2327<br>
<dd>Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327<br>
<dd>415 383 4810 land<br>
<dd>415 519 4810 mobile<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:bwl3@comcast.net">bwl3@comcast.net</a> <br>
<dd><a href="mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org">
bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org</a> <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.fotr.org/">http://www.fotr.org</a><br>
</u></i>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>B <br>
</b>
<dd>B <br>
<dd>B <br><br>
<br>
</font>
<dd><pre>_______________________________________________
<dd>env-trinity mailing list
<a href="mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us">
<dd>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us</a>
<dd>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</a>
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2></font></blockquote><br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf">
Important notices</a><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>env-trinity mailing list<br>
<dd>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</a></blockquote><br>
<dd>Kier Associates, Fisheries and Watershed Professionals<br>
</i>
<dd>P.O. Box 915<br>
<dd>Blue Lake, CA 95525<br>
<dd>707.668.1822 <br>
<dd>mobile: 498.7847 <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.kierassociates.net/">
http://www.kierassociates.net<br>
</a>
<dd>GSA Advantage Contractor GS-10F-0124U <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>env-trinity mailing list<br>
<dd>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</a><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
</dl>Kier Associates, <i>Fisheries and Watershed Professionals<br>
</i>P.O. Box 915<br>
Blue Lake, CA 95525<br>
707.668.1822 <br>
mobile: 498.7847 <br>
<a href="http://www.kierassociates.net/">http://www.kierassociates.net<br>
</a>GSA Advantage Contractor GS-10F-0124U </body>
</html>