[calcowgirl]

klamath ping

[Oratam]

How will this effect Bigfoot?

[DoughtyOne]

Let me guess... we are going to remove electric generation plants with nothing to replace the power loss right?

If so, this is essentially one leftist action that is going to defeat other leftist actions. We want to get off foreign oil. We want to go clean energy production. And now we’re poised to destroy clean energy production.

If this is a good idea, why not remove Hover dam too? I mean let’s get back to nature folks.

[Buchal]

What a pack of lies.

[ByteMercenary]

“PacifiCorp agrees to contribute as much as $200 million to cover the cost of removing its four dams and restoring the river. ... The impact to customer bills will be less than one percent.”

Slightly off topic but this quote or one like it shows up daily in the media to wit: an expense to a company shows up in the price to the consumer. And yet the average Leftist continues to scream that taxing business is the way to Nirvana. Why is it so hard for these people to understand that taxing business does not (necessarily) reduce profits but it certainly does increase prices.

[BallyBill]

They removed most of the old dams on the Schuylkill River around me. Most served no useful purpose anymore and now boaters and canoeist aren't impeded by them. The Shad will come back too.

Ironic because most of them had been built for recreational purposes over a century ago before water parks and home swimming pools.

[Grampa Dave]

Besides the obvious, these enviral fish idiots will be going Duh when we have a drought year like this past one.

Then, the Klamath will be a dusty highway during the no rain summer and fall.

Any smolts and a half pounders will be dead if they are still in the river system.

Of course if the river is dry, no Salmon or Steelhead will be able to come up the Klamath until we have some heavy rains in the fall or winter.

Without the dams holding the previous winter run off, there will be basically no water flowing down the Klamath during dry years.

Then the overweight salmon killing seals will have to go on welfare and salmon food stamps to keep from starving.

Of course the dam removal has nothing to do with protecting the salmon/steelhead.

The Green enviro whackos want to get rid of every rancher/farmer and professional guide/fisher downstream from the Klamath Lake to the Pacific Ocean.

The Spotted Owl BS got rid of the loggers and lumber people.

Now the Salmon BS will eliminate the farmers/ranchers and small communities down stream from Klamath Lake to the Pacific.

[thackney]

removing the dams and replacing their power

I wonder if they calculated how much pollution would be generated by replacing this clean and reliable power source?

[tubebender]

There's more Bull Crap in this story than 50 square miles of Feed Lots... In 40 years South California will have a dam across the Klamath every 10 miles right down to the ocean to export the water for their golf courses and swimming pools...

[Jeff Head]

Dam fools. (pun and spelling intended)

Although this does not effect the dam in Klamath where we fought our battle in 2001, this is a very bad deal and a very bad precedent.

They are taking clean, direct energy production out of the system with a whimsical promise that it will be replaced by "something" clean and efficient...but no direct info or plan to do so.

Fact is, the enviro nazis care less about US dependence on oil. They, their NGO patrners (who are tied at the hip to the United Nations), their liberal politician and judge enablers, and a (once again complicit MSM) want to see the US dependent and paying more for energy because, like the Obamanation stated...they believe that the rest of thw world will not put up with it and it fits their marxist agendas.

They have been talking of doing this same thing on the Snake River for years and this will embolden them to press all the harder for it.

Their "study" is more junk science like the one that called for the preservation of non-threatened (by any common sense and local knowledge standpoint) sucker fish in the Klamath Reservoir in 2001.

The book is available as a complete, professional Adobe PDF download, FREE to all Freepers AT THE LINK HERE

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

But ultimately, this isn't about tearing down dams.

Yes it is, you liar.

[marsh2]

There are two agreements (1) the Klamath Restoration Agreement and (2) the Agreement in Principle to remove the dams. Both really screw the people of Siskiyou County at or below the dams. We were the sacrificial lamb in a deal with the devil that the Klamath Project Farmers made with the tribes.

Here is a link to information about the Restoration Agreement: http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Poweranddamstoc/nodams/toc.htm
Here is a link to the initial report from the County’s consultant concerning the adequacy and credibility of the science supporting dam removal and how it could pose harm to public health, safety and the environment: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Brownfield_PreliminaryReviewofKlamathRiverDamandSedimentInvestigation071308.htm and http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/SiskiyouCounty_TestimonyofMinerandLambie071308.htm and http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/SiskiyouCounty_AddendumTestimonyofLambie071308.htm
Here is my initial cost/benefit analysis http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Cost%20Benefit%20dam%20removal.htm and http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Cost%20Benefit%20settlement%20agreement.htm The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously opposed the Restoration Agreement.

The official statement of the Board on the AIP is:

The County of Siskiyou wishes to express its concern with the recent Agreement in Principle (AlP) issued with respect to removing the Irongate Dam, the Copco 1 Dam, the Copco 2 Dam, and the J. C. Boyle Dam, and other works presently licensed to PacifiCorp.

While the County of Siskiyou is appreciative of the parties permitting the County to participate in the discussions, the Agreement that has been undertaken by the parties still leaves significant issues unaddressed, not the least of which is the fact that it does not clearly address the cost and impacts to the County of Siskiyou and its constituents, nor does it provide sufficient provisions for determining such impacts. Unanswered by the Agreement in Principle (AlP) are the specific studies that will be undertaken, the degree to which local entities such as Siskiyou County will be permitted to participate, and provisions which essentially allow PacifiCorp and other parties to avoid any liability arising from its ownership and operation of the facilities. Unexplained is the scope of liability for the Dam Removal Entity (ORE) envisioned by the Agreement. In fact, no local input is provided for with respect to who is going to remove these dams which have been such an essential and integral part of Siskiyou County for many years.

Siskiyou County does acknowledge that, under the Miscellaneous Provisions of the Agreement in Principle (AlP), it does state that the Final Agreement “may” address the economic impact of the facilities removal on Siskiyou County and “may” address the issues regarding the City of Yreka’s water supply, as well as other terms. However, these terms are not mandatorily required. The Board of Supervisors opposes the AIP and the process described therein. The County of Siskiyou is of the opinion that those matters addressed in its Resolution in April, 2008, opposing a Sense of Congress Resolution requiring dam removal remain unanswered and that the removal of the dams will be a crippling blow to the County of Siskiyou. The County remains opposed to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. The Board of Supervisors directs County Counsel to issue Requests for Qualifications for special counsel to assist County Counsel as part of the Board’s intention to assemble a team to oppose the removal of the dams.

My own personal concerns include: (1) Siskiyou County has long requested in vain that, should the dams be removed, provisions be made to restore the lands behind the dams, mitigations be guaranteed for damage to road and other infrastructure, and that the County receive financial offsets for its substantial loss in tax revenue, impacts to local landowners and economy; (2) The issue of blanket waivers of liability for dam removal leaves landowners and others without recourse for damage to health, property, business and fish and wildlife habitat; (3) There is no certainty in the AIP for protection of the City of Yreka’s water supply; (4) There is no guarantee of the necessary currently non-existent studies that need to be done to determine benefits to fish, probable sediment transport behavior and potential negative impacts on human health, property, business, the economy of Siskiyou County and fish and wildlife habitat; (5) There is no certainty that alternatives such as a fish bypass will be given consideration; (6) The AIP appears to embrace the Klamath Restoration Agreement. There is no change in the unacceptable provisions concerning a fisheries restoration plan to be written by the tribes and agencies and the imposition of a river-wide “governance structure” that has inadequate and unequal representation of mid-Klamath stakeholders. These stakeholders, such as Copco landowners, and the Scott and Shasta Valley famers/ ranchers, were not a part of negotiations under that Agreement but would be subject to it.

This is probably the only place you will ever hear that there is another side to the feel good kumbaya stories the tribes, environmentalists and Klamath Basin farmers send out. None of the reporters ever ask the people here who are directly affected.