<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="+1">You're right Glen, that colleagues disagree with
you. That Siskiyou County agrees with Hoopa that the SWRCB is
violating the Clean Water Act by delaying the 401 cert is no more
disturbing than the fact that PCFFA was represented by PacifiCorp
in its filing opposing the Tribe. Did you look at the caselaw
Hoopa and Siskiyou cited?<br>
<br>
You shouldn't repeat the old falsehood that <big>"</big></font><big><font
id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2"><big><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"
size="2"><big><big>FERC has never ordered a dam down in its
history <u>except</u> pursuant to a Settlement like the
KHSA."</big></big></font></big></font><font
id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2"><big><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"
size="2"><big><big> You ignore the many dam removals that
are occurring as a result of the FERC process. It's half
true that FERC normally hasn't "ordered" removal, but
the whole truth is that FERC orders have forced the
parties to agree to removal of the dams, which FERC
aqpproves. Didn't anyone see the Condit dam destroyed
last October (if not, please see <a
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9cudp1eCdc">this</a>).
<br>
<br>
Why did PacifiCorp remove Condit? Was it purely
voluntary? No, it was because FERC's license included
the agencies' sec. 18 prescriptions--requirements of
volitional upstream and downstream fish passage, as FERC
is compelled to do by the Supreme Court's <i>Escondido</i>
decision in 1984 and, more recently, the <i>City of
Tacoma</i> case in 2006 (<a
href="http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf">here</a>).
<br>
</big></big></font></big></font><font id="role_document"
color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><big><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2"><big><big><br>
</big></big></font></big></font>Three examples of FERC
licensing proceedings resulting in dam removal may be found in the
orders concerning Condit Dam, found <a
href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/%7Ehoopa/ConditSurrender20101216-3025.pdf">here</a>,
Edward Dam, found <a
href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/%7Ehoopa/Edwards-FortHalifaxDam_FERCRejectRequestStayAmendSurrender.pdf">here</a>,
and Eagle and Phenix Hydro Company, found <a
href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/%7Ehoopa/FERC_p-2655Surrrender20110608-3036.pdf">here</a>.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Typically in these cases, the
licensee concludes that future operation of a project on the new
terms that are consistent with existing law will be uneconomic, so
the licensee seeks and obtains FERC’s permission to decommission
the project.</big><span style=""><big> PacifiCorp's testimony to
the PUCs in connection with the dam removal surcharge makes
clear their opinion that the most cost effective route for them
is removal of all four dams.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, it is highly unusual, and not found in the cases
linked above, for dam removal to be conditioned upon enacting
expensive federal legislation that deprives Indian tribes of
protection for their water rights and that seeks appropriations
for power subsidies. Those conditions, found in the KHSA's
connection to the KBRA, makes dam removal very unlikely under
the KHSA.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tom</big><br>
<br>
</span>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2012 2:42 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:FISH1IFR@aol.com">FISH1IFR@aol.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:16e23.2db45835.3d1cd84c@aol.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16446">
<font id="role_document" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>In a message dated 6/27/2012 1:55:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight
Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tstokely@att.net">tstokely@att.net</a> writes:</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
transparent" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">You may
find the attached of interest. Siskiyou County filed a
petition to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in
response to the Hoopa Valley Tribe's petition for FERC on
the issue of relicensing Pacificorps' Klamath Dams.</font></blockquote>
<div><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2">Colleagues...</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2">Siskiyou County's supporting a return
to FERC just underscores the fact that by far the most
likely outcome of the FERC process on its own (assuming the
KHSA no longer holds) is RELICENSING, not dam
decommissioning. People forget that this was FERC Staff's
strong recommendation back in 2007. FERC has never ordered
a dam down in its history <u>except</u> pursuant to a
Settlement like the KHSA. There is no special reason they
would do so in this one case. <em>This is an agency of
which it is said that it has never seen a dam it did not
like!</em></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2">And remember, one of these four dams
(J.C. Boyle) is in Oregon, where the water quality laws are
much weaker, the environmental agencies even more timid
about denying a 401 Certification and facing massive
litigation, and the water quality impacts of the Oregon dam
are the least of them all. J.C. Boyle also generates up to
80 MW -- the large majority of the generation of the whole
system -- and therefore is by far the most valuable dam to
keep, should it come to FERC. (Iron Gate = only 18 MW)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2">A return to FERC risks at least a
partial relicensing, and the loss of this unique opportunity
for full river restoration for up to the next 50
years. Compared to the KHSA now in hand, which offers
four-dam removal within the next 8 years, Parties to the
KHSA such as PCFFA consider this "return to FERC and FERC
will fix it" strategy to be very high risk. Some of my
esteemed colleagues clearly disagree with me, particularly
the Hoopa Tribe. But the fact that Siskiyou County is now
cheering on the Hoopa Tribe's Petition to FERC to resume
control over the relicensing process should give one great
pause about the potential outcomes of that "return to FERC"
strategy.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>As the great Yogi Berra said, "It is always dangerous to
make predictions -- <em>especially</em> about the future."</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#000000"
face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<div><font family="SANSSERIF" ptsize="10" face="Arial"
lang="0" size="2">======================================<br>
Glen H. Spain, Northwest Regional Director<br>
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<br>
PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<br>
Office: (541)689-2000 Fax: (541)689-2500<br>
Web Home Page: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</a><br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fish1ifr@aol.com">fish1ifr@aol.com</a></font></div>
</div>
</font></font>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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">
<title>Important notices</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Author>Tom Schlosser</o:Author>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:LastAuthor>Tom Schlosser</o:LastAuthor>
<o:Revision>2</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>3</o:TotalTime>
<o:Created>2006-04-06T17:04:00Z</o:Created>
<o:LastSaved>2006-04-06T17:04:00Z</o:LastSaved>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>15</o:Words>
<o:Characters>91</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Morisset Schlosser et al.</o:Company>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>105</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>10.6714</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<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><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf">Important
notices</a></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>