<!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>I knew when I replied that I'd get this type of response back. I'm
not interested in continued exchanges, only in getting this done, realizing some
will battle to the end to block. The perfect is the enemy of the good in
this case. Opinions are unlikely to change, and the proof will be in the
doing. Tom, I respect you, just don't agree.</DIV>
<DIV>Mark R.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/28/2011 11:03:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
t.schlosser@msaj.com 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=+1>Bill's point about utility regulation is generally right but I think
PacifiCorp cannot show that incurring the cost of providing up/down fish
passage is recoverable from ratepayers. FERC won't mandate those improvements
but their offer of a license will be conditioned on acceptance of the costs of
improvements. PacifiCorp will reject that license. Their submissions to the
Oregon PUC and the CPUC in support of surcharging ratepayers to raise funds
for dam removal showed that dam removal was the most cost effective solution.
I don't think they can change their minds now and say that the public interest
favors incurring the larger costs and risks of building volitional
passage. The OPUC's informative but length <A title=http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/~hoopa/Surchargeorder091610.pdf href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/~hoopa/Surchargeorder091610.pdf">order
on the subject is here</A>.<BR><BR>Mark's claim that
<BIG>"</BIG></FONT><BIG><FONT size=+0><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><BIG>in most years there will be much more water going to the river
than in the past, especially during dry years"</BIG></FONT></FONT></BIG>
<BIG>is just hogwash. This compares the river trickles released by Reclamation
(in defiance of the ESA and the needs of fish from 1974 until 2001) with the
post KBRA flows.<BIG> </BIG>A fairer comparison is between the ESA BiOp and
KBRA: the KBRA does not fare better in that comparison, indeed it seeks to
reduce the ESA requirements.<BR><BR>Mark's efforts to "<FONT size=+0><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><BIG>prevent waiver of the ESA requirements in
the critically dry years" failed. Instead, he and other parties
agreed</BIG></FONT></FONT> in sec. 21.3.1.B to support changes in the BiOp
requirements in order to facilitate the Reclamation diversions of water that
have nearly destroyed the fishery. That subsection says:<BR><BR>" ii.
Support for Regulatory Approvals of Diversion Limitations<BR>a. Each such
Party shall support the issuance of Regulatory Approvals for diversion of
water for the Klamath Reclamation Project subject to the diversion limitations
identified in Appendix E-1, including the obligations of Federal and State
Agency Parties stated in Section 21.3.1.A."<BR><BR>The draft drought plan
doesn't change any of this--one of the reasons all should comment on it before
the April 15, 2011 deadline.<BR><BR>And one final sore point--the "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" The idea of
reprogramming $600 million of federal funding in the Basin--money going to
things like the Trinity River Restoration Program--to pay instead for the huge
subsidies to irrigation pumpers and the "on-project water plan" is just
ridiculous.<BR><BR>Tom</BIG><BR><FONT size=+1><BR>The claim
that</FONT><BR><BR>On 3/28/2011 10:12 AM, <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated title=mailto:summerhillfarmpv@aol.com href="mailto:summerhillfarmpv@aol.com">summerhillfarmpv@aol.com</A> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:31b12.39367e2e.3ac21b8b@aol.com type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975"><FONT 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, <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated title=mailto:kierassociates@suddenlink.net href="mailto:kierassociates@suddenlink.net">kierassociates@suddenlink.net</A>
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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">
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/" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">bwl3@comcast.net</A> <BR><A title=mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org href="mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org" moz-do-not-send="true">bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org</A> <BR><A title=http://www.fotr.org/ href="http://www.fotr.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.fotr.org</A><BR></U></B></I><B>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" moz-do-not-send="true">
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" moz-do-not-send="true" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>-- <BR><A title="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 040606.pdf" href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">Important
notices</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>env-trinity
mailing list<BR><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 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><BR><A title=http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" moz-do-not-send="true" eudora="autourl">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</A></BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP></X-SIGSEP></FONT>
<P><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>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/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.kierassociates.net<BR></A>GSA Advantage
Contractor GS-10F-0124U
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>env-trinity
mailing list<BR><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 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><BR><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext title=http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</A><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV class=moz-signature>-- <BR>
<META name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10">
<META name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"><LINK rel=File-List href="msajsig_files/filelist.xml">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><A title="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 040606.pdf" href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf">Important
notices</A></P></DIV></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>