The Email below has been received, it asks many good questions regarding the ONRC manifesto "A Conservation Vision for the Klamath Basin" from the Coalition for the Klamath Basin ( Wendell Wood )
The answers need to be on this site.. we need to tear down the whole thing paragraph by paragraph .. And show it's flaws..... Action: If you can answer any of the questions, copy it, paste it into Email, write the the answer and send it firstname.lastname@example.org
........And let's see some more input on the discussion page
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Coalition for the Klamath Basin
I have several questions maybe you can answer.
1. Were any farm member groups invited to participate in this "coalition for the Klamath Basin? If invited, why didn't any participate?
2. Lost fishing jobs are cited as a need for this project because fishing groups are part of the coalition. No where are lost ag jobs and lost revenue in ag related industries cited. Is this info available? It should be used against their argument.
3. Are the Natives (Indians) complaining about the loss of fish, water quality, etc. that is cited in this paper?
4. Why aren't the Indian tribes partners in this coalition? Maybe they are on your side, do you know?
5. How are "normative" conditions measured or determined? Bad science will generate bad results: garbage in; garbage out. Who has done the scientific work and where are all the studies showing all the "historic" examples.
6. What price for land will be assigned to pay people for family history and family memories?
7. Can they outlaw farming onions, sugar beets and potatoes on privately owned land?
8. How long has this thing been coming down? What proactive actions did the ag. community take? Was it phased in?
9. What do they mean by: "Water uses that are non-agricultural and of minimal economic or ecological value should be retired"?
10. If the law is that the refuges are the last to receive water, where in the law does it say that rivers are first?
11. Would organic farmers have a higher priority to receive water since you don't use chemicals which are their concern in runoff?
12. Where are the logging interests in this? They want to discontinue log storage in the lake and discontinue roads in Nat. Forest. They might be on your side.
13. Did water users develop and implement a water conservation plan as specified in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982?
14. Who will pay for the water measuring devices they propose should be installed? What type do they recommend? Why shouldn't farmers be able to sell the water they conserve?
15. Do you oppose dry year fallowing? How would this impact the ag. economy? Don't you have more dry years than wet years?
16. If everyone drilled wells to access groundwater, how would that impact the aquifer? Would the groundwater get recharged? How? Would the level of the Basin sink as water was withdrawn? What are the seismic implications? Is groundwater pure, or more toxic than the "runoff water" replete with chemicals? Sometimes geothermically active areas have poisonous water present underground.
17.If the Klamath River has traditionally been a nutrient rich system--what levels do they think historically existed? If it is super-nutritious today, couldn't that be a natural outcome?
18. Why did EPA reject the State of Oregon's TMDL as insufficient?