<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>Mark Rockwell</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/28/2011 9:48:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
kierassociates@suddenlink.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=4 face=Garamond>Tom<BR><BR>With the greatest respect and regard for your
counsel, believe me, Ive just got to stick my oar in here : <BR><BR>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>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% <U>on
top</U> of its (the ratepayers') out of pocket costs<BR><BR>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>The volitional fish passage work, had it been the path
taken, would have been idiotic - but profitable to the utility/ its
shareholders<BR><BR>That said, I, too, wish for satisfaction of PacifiCorps'
Clean Water Act responsibilities.<BR><BR>'Best to
all,<BR><BR>Bill<BR><BR></FONT>At 08:58 AM 3/28/2011, Tom Schlosser wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT size=4>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>ify the KBRA<FONT size=4>, 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 title=http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf href="http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf">http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf</A><BR><BR>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>Tom</FONT><BR><BR>On 3/27/2011 3:09 PM, Byron
Leydecker wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><B>B <BR>B <BR>From:</B> Dan
Bacher [<A title=mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com href="mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com">
mailto:danielbacher@fishsniffer.com</A>] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, March
27, 2011 1:49 PM<BR><B>Subject:</B> Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at
Bayside Grange!<BR>B <BR>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>B <BR>Thanks<BR>Dan<BR>B <BR>Dear
friends,<BR>B <BR>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>B <BR>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>B
<BR>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>B <BR>Erica
Terence<BR>Conservation Director/Executive Director<BR>Klamath
Riverkeeper<BR>PO Box 751<BR>Somes Bar, CA 95568<BR>B <BR>530.627.3311
(office)<BR>530.340.5415 (cell)<BR>B <BR><U><A title=http://www.klamathriver.org/ href="http://www.klamathriver.org/">http://www.klamathriver.org</A>
<BR></U>B <BR><B>B <BR></B><I>Byron Leydecker<BR>Chair, Friends of Trinity
River<BR>PO Box 2327<BR>Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327<BR>415 383 4810
land<BR>415 519 4810 mobile<BR><B><U><A title=mailto:bwl3@comcast.net href="mailto:bwl3@comcast.net">bwl3@comcast.net</A> <BR><A title=mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org href="mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org">bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org</A>
<BR><A title=http://www.fotr.org/ href="http://www.fotr.org/">http://www.fotr.org</A><BR></U></I>B <BR>B
<BR></B>B <BR>B <BR><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
<A title=mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us href="mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us">
env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us</A>
<A title=http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity 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"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>-- <BR><A title="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 040606.pdf" href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf">Important
notices</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>env-trinity
mailing list<BR>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us<BR><A title=http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" eudora="autourl">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</A></BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>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 title=http://www.kierassociates.net/ href="http://www.kierassociates.net/">http://www.kierassociates.net<BR></A>GSA
Advantage Contractor GS-10F-0124U
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>env-trinity mailing
list<BR>env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us<BR>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity<BR></P></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>