Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.


Rebuttal penned to KRRC guest editorial

for Herald and News

A point response to Dave Meurer, KRRC employee paid to promote Klamath dams destruction:

The reason Mr. Meurer feels it would be “unique” that “dam removal might mean more water for farmers instead of less” is because it doesn’t. There is nothing to support that unaccountable assertion, and much which supports the opposite.

There is no integrated provision for Klamath River “flushes” to end. In fact, recent sentinel fish studies and ceratomyxa shasta (CS) genotype findings infer potentially far worse polychaete salmon disease conditions in the Upper Basin, with biologists even now suggesting possible increased demanded pulses to compensate after irreversible dams destruction.

Without the lakes already tapped numerous times to fulfill pulse flows, only Upper Basin storage will be left to fill triggered demands.

The KRRC is not an “organization” which just happened to be “tasked with undamming the Klamath.” It is a corporation, created specifically and exclusively to destroy our regional resources at no cost to themselves, no matter what the majority loss to others, while protecting orchestrating agreement special interests from liability.

The KRRC doesn’t have to touch Upper Klamath Lake, they will leave that to others, along with agreement KRRC members who have openly said that Keno will be their next step.

Our hearts are with Upper Basin family/farmers/ranchers desperately trying to survive in the face of countless failed promises and assertions, but those living with the dams know this lie to simply be another step towards intended “rewilded” regional attrition regardless of actual environmental consequence.

PacifiCorp just filed its response anticipating roughly half the salmon returns to the area than currently provided by Iron Gate Hatchery using unnaturally available cold water quantity and quality, production capacity and consistency eliminated with the lake.

Imposing a new Upper Basin bureaucratically mandated defacto habitat, any salmon making it through the naturally nonconductive region will bring added CS genotypes currently blocked by the dams to resident polychaete infecting Upper Basin fish, releasing myxospores and actinospores, compounding salmon disease down the entire Klamath.

Experimental theoretically based scrubbing flows have already been shown marginal in polychaete reduction, and considering known upstream nonproductive geomorphology, gravel recruitment scrubbing is ridiculous, when Agreement signers already require the current import of gravel to the Klamath Canyon, paid for by ratepayers.

Due to natural Upper Klamath Lake and Upper Basin conditions cost-effectively un-ameliorable above Keno, we now know the hydroelectric dams and lakes reduce nutrients and intercept naturally occurring late summer decomposing biomass from delivery downstream for up to two months during lowest flows and highest temperatures, typically during commencement of salmon runs.

In doing so, disease and toxicity potentials are typically reduced and delayed until improved downstream flows and temperatures further minimize potential detriment.

A free run river is already known to require many times the hydro project-occupied miles to produce an equivalent improvement, miles that don’t exist.

Emerging data regarding microcystis aeruginosa characteristics, toxin production, and instream competitive advantage for the algae historically prevalent in Klamath Lake, now suggests a far greater instream toxicity potential after dams are destroyed, something already seen to a far lesser degree with some of the least toxic levels leaving Iron Gate and some of the highest outbreaks occurring in the warmer slower waters over 100 miles downstream.

Given that recent data and far more not being considered in the destruction agenda, the Hydro Project currently provides the only cost effective upstream water quality improvement for downstream salmonid use.

Mr. Muerer suggests that destroying the rare proven productive habitat of one endangered species in order to introduce another into an incompatible environment might somehow possibly result in a benefit to the Upper Basin, though of course it isn’t guaranteed.

Really? How have unaccountable agenda assurances worked out for you so far? The only entities assured to benefit regardless of environmental outcome are the Agreement special interest signatories themselves.

Many of the assumptions justifying original agreement demands forcing PacifiCorp economic decision are now known baseless, but the KRRC, which doesn’t even yet own the facilities they intend to destroy, is already spending millions of ratepayer/taxpayer dollars to make sure that destruction happens.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) already accepted agreement provisions to insure signers are held harmless from liability. If KRRC manages to convince FERC to sign off on transfer to KRRC, FERC will not consider if regional destruction should occur, only how.

Not to worry, without any accountability for the vast majority of known damages to the environment, public/private vested property, and lives, once KRRC has executed irreversible destruction of countless sustainable environmental and economic benefits, Mr. Muerer will go back home. Do not believe what they imply. FERC has not yet signed off on this debacle.

Rex Cozzalio is a third-generation resident on the Klamath River who’s property is downstream from Iron Gate Dam.

Dam removal report sparks HOPE for Klamath Basin Ag, H&N by dam removal liason Dave Maurer 3/13/19.
"...dam removal MIGHT mean more water for farmers..."
"...dam removal MAY have something big to offer..."
"...dam removal COULD free up more water (for farmers)..."
"...ESA MIGHT loosen its grip on the region..."
"...HOPEFULLY we'll have more salmon..."
"...POSSIBILITY of using this 50,000 acre feet of water for crops..."
"...dam removal will LIKELY reduce or eliminate the biological necessity for spring dilution flows..."
IF the conditions triggering the court order are addressed by the benefits of dam removal, this COULD result in a real and measurable benefit to farmers. IT ISN'T A GUARANTEE..."
"...We BELIEVE that river restoration will help communities..."


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Home Contact


              Page Updated: Sunday March 24, 2019 01:51 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2019, All Rights Reserved